lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (08/29/85)
I think there's rather a lot of misconception floating around regarding this issue. Part of my work is in the satellite communications area so I track these issues pretty closely. There have been a number of different legal events and laws regarding this area, and I'm not going to try specify them, but rather just explain the backround and outcome as I understand them. --- First of all, the oft-quoted old Communications Act doesn't really say you can listen/watch to whatever you want. It essentially says you can receive "broadcast" signals so long as you don't divulge the contents nor receive "benefit" from them. Interpretations of this law have long held that intercepting point-to-point telephone microwave transmissions can be construed as wiretapping, by the way. I'm simplifying to some extent regarding the Act, but you get the idea. Now, "benefit" can be defined in different ways. On one end, you might say you benefit only if you sell the signals/info you received and make money. On the other hand, it might be said that you benefit simply from enjoying the signals! In practice, the current legal view has been shifting from a strict interpretation more like the former view towards a different concept. More and more, "benefit" is being viewed as being able to receive something for free that other people have to pay a fee to receive. There are numerous complexities and exceptions. For example, if you scramble your signal, the current view is that you're not really "broadcasting" but really trying to do a multipoint feed to particular people. If you intended the signal for general reception, you wouldn't scramble. Laws now generally protect scrambled transmissions as being essentially "non-broadcast" entities. A recent California appeals case convicted someone of viewing unscrambled microwave MDS--but this case seems a bit cloudy and runs contrary to the general pattern--it may yet be overturned (MDS cases are often tricky, but I won't go into the details of this case here). Now, back to satellites. The people who transmit the popular cable services say they are not broadcasting to the public--that they are providing a service for their cable system affiliates only. This view was somewhat difficult to support given that the public ended up watching these signals in great numbers on cable systems. The situation was complicated by the fact that many people did not have access to cable and had no alternative to receiving the signals directly if they wanted to see them. This wouldn't have caused much trouble if the services had, by and large, been willing to deal with individuals. But most of them flatly refused to deal with other than cable entities, claiming the administrative hassles of dealing lots of individuals was too great. Of course, many people indeed bought dishes simply to avoid paying for cable, even when cable was available. For a number of reasons, this restriction was eventually rejected by Congress. The decision was made (as I understand it) that most unscrambled satellite transmissions were indeed fair game to receive, but that the public viewing these indeed DID receive benefit from receiving them, since their counterparts who subscribed to cable had to pay. The end result was the concept that you could watch pretty much whatever unscrambled transmissions you wanted, but if the signals were offered for sale to the general public at a fair and equitable price then you must pay for them. In other words, if a satellite service WERE WILLING to deal with you as an individual, and charged you an equitable fee in comparison to cable subscribers, you need to pay the fee since you are receiving benefit from the transmissions. If the service were unscrambled and refused to deal with you, then you were free to receive the service. In practice, there are other issues involved also, and this is just my own interpretation of events--take it for whatever value you will, but I think I'm pretty close to the bottom-line facts. Right now there is some hangling between some satellite services and congressmen who supported the bills in questions over the matter of pricing. There are some claims that the fees being charged to individuals are much higher than the fees charged per subscriber to cable systems... but the services claim that this is equitable given the administrative overhead of billing and record keeping for individuals. This issue has yet to be fully resolved. Issues of scrambled vs. non-scrambled transmissions are also still somewhat hazy in areas. Finally, I might add that I doubt very much that there would be a public outcry to repeal such restrictions. If anything, most people would probably support tighter restrictions. Most people don't have their own dishes, and pay for cable services. I suspect that most of these people (rightly or wrongly) detest the people who they perceive as getting for "free" what *they* have to pay for. In fact, if you brought it to a vote, I'll bet that the population would happily vote in many other restrictions on spectrum listening--such as law enforcement transmissions, portable telephones, etc. The mood of the country is generally conservative on these issues, so I suggest that you think carefully before trying to get the public at large involved in such telecommunications matters. Please note that I'm not expressing an opinion one way or another about these particular issues, just passing along my understanding of the situation. --Lauren--
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (09/03/85)
This has no bearing on the legality/illegality of satellite reception,
but I am miffed at the attitude of TBS, ESPN, etc, that satellite dish
owners should pay for the privilege of viewing the commercials that
they carry.
I can understand the commercial-free services like HBO being upset, but
TBS, ESPN, MTV, etc appear to me to be similar to ABC, CBS, and NBC in
that they carry commercials to cover their costs.
But then, I'm also miffed that PBS thinks I should "contribute" to the
local station so that they can show commercials too. By the way,
why should they now have the privilege of using the channels which the
FCC had reserved for "non-commercial use only"?
I guess the commercial networks were right when they claimed, ten years
ago, that "pay TV" would simply be charging for the same services that
were already available on commercial broadcast "for free".
--
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {seismo!noao,decvax!noao,ihnp4}!terak!douglauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (09/05/85)
Not to justify their actions, but at least some of the commercial-laden services aren't all that happy about doing scrambling, but are having their arms bent by others. In particular, the sports suppliers are upset about not having control over the markets in which things run (they already demand that some cable companies black out some programs, but they can't do that with TVRO people). Also, the copyright holders of most movies and old TV shows are starting to get very testy. They're demanding a cut from everyone watching those old programs. What makes satellite transmission of "The Munsters" different than watching it on a local station?--the answer is easy: When a local station buys a program like that, they pay a fee based on their market share. If you're in LA or NYC, it's a big fee, since they're the two biggest markets in the country. But if you run your operation out of a smaller city... like Atlanta (WTBS) or WOR (Secauscus, NJ) you pay much less than a station in LA that only sends to the Los Angeles Metro area. Yet, these satellite superstations like WTBS, WOR, and WGN are sending to the entire country, not just one city! The program suppliers feel that they're getting cheated by not being able to charge the kind of fees that they would for conventional network airing. There are other complexities, but the end result is that there is considerable pressure on many of the non-pay operations to collect some fees and send them back to the program suppliers and copyright holders. Some services will never scramble. You should always be able to watch TBN (blechh!), University Network (Dr. Gene Scott-- very interesting at times), C-SPAN, etc. But so long as there are copyright holders who want a piece of the pie, even the non-pay operations will be under pressure to scramble. On the other hand, as I reported in another list recently, the HBO scrambling experiments are having serious problems (MA/COM $400 decoders, DES audio encryption) and the industy is sitting back to see how HBO comes out before they make initial moves in the scrambling direction. --Lauren--
brown@nicmad.UUCP (09/05/85)
Carefull. The networks may be 'free', but at least HBO, etc, doesn't
cut up the movie and insert commercials or cut out the juicy bits.
They may be free, but they are prudish.
--
Mr. Video {seismo!uwvax!|!decvax|!ihnp4}!nicmad!brownprg@mgweed.UUCP (Phil Gunsul) (09/06/85)
[....] I have found that I am listening to my satellite dish much more than watching it lately. I suggest anyone with a dish get off Galaxy I for a while and listen to Keith Lamonica on Telstar 303 (a couple of degrees East of where Comstar D4 was), transponder 18. The program is a "call in" type and really generates some interesting conversations. He is on each evening from 8:00 P.M. central time until 10, 11 or 12, whenever things die down! On Sunday evenings, he is starting to have video, although I think I like just the call in better. I would like to hear from any other individuals who have been listen to him... If you value your _RIGHT_ to own and operate your own Earth station, I suggest you listen in! Happy dish fishing!! Phil Gunsul -- WB9AAX
john@anasazi.UUCP (John Moore) (09/06/85)
In article <706@terak.UUCP> doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) writes: >This has no bearing on the legality/illegality of satellite reception, >but I am miffed at the attitude of TBS, ESPN, etc, that satellite dish >owners should pay for the privilege of viewing the commercials that >they carry. Doug, Have you been to a movie lately? The last time I went to the theatre, I paid 5 bucks to sit through 15 minutes of commercials before the movie started. The pay TV folks are no different. -- John Moore (NJ7E) {decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!john (602) 952-8205 (day or evening)
dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (09/06/85)
Frankly, I am miffed at the FCC's asinine position which still segregates
spectrum space into "educational" and "commercial." Remember when all the
NYC V's bought out Channel 13 and made it WNET. Nothing like buying off a
competitor, right? Now, I hear from very reliable sources, that they are running
ads stating that you can get "thirties on Thirteen." Imagine that, a PUBLIC
TV station selling "sponsorships."
Then there are those religious broadcasters who run essentially paid
religious broadcasting (soliciting donations) in both parts of the FM band.
(See my recent flamage in net.music about this...down boy...down! )
Then there are those jerks who are lining up to get a UHF station in
your town, radiate 3 watts out of a plastic coathanger on top of a Hechinger's
TV antenna mast pole, and whine and complain about "must carry." To hell
with must carry! My cable system has excess capacity of 30+ channels! I
wouldn't mind getting a real NBC Affiliate in Charlotte (WXII Winston Salem...
Cablevision of Charlotte, are you listening?). After all, you can get PTL
club on our cable system on 5 different channels. Is this diversity?
Speaking about educational TV and radio, I think the FCC should take
a very long and hard look at monopolizing of channels. For example the
State of North Carolina has 8 (count em, 8) public TV stations which do
a fine job, thank you. However, they all operate with less than maximum
facilities (like 300 kw visual) on UHF. Educational broadcasters should not
be given carte blanche in spectrum utilization, but rather be encouraged
to use MAXIMUM TOWER AND POWER to reach their viewers. I can't believe
for one minute that it costs more money to put up one 5MW UHF station
in Clemmons, N.C. to cover what channel 17 (Linville) and channel 26 (Winston-
Salem) does now! And, I don't feel one bit sorry for their complaints about
money when UNC operates channel 58 Concord, NC and someone else operates
WTVI (42) Charlotte... not to mention the public TV station in Rock Hill.
Can you imagine what a conniption fit the FCC would raise if, say,
channel 45 in Belmont and channel 3 in Charlotte (equally as close)
were both CBS Affiliates ?
Segregation of the ether has had exactly the effect which Netwon Minow
said: it turned commercial TV into a vast wasteland. Knowing that their
brothers below 92.1 mHz and on the "*" TV channels would take care of
"culture" and "limited commercials" and "no editorializing (hmmmm?)" the
major networks were given free run over their affiliates to bring us such
wonders as a Double Shot of "The Lone Ranger" and dreck like "Sliver Spoons".
I've no objection whatsoever to the programming or ideals of public TV
and radio. What I have an objection to is the segregation of the ether that
serves no purpose whatsoever but to perpetuate 80% of the FM band being
the RFI that it generally is. I also violently object to those fundraising
campaigns that public stations feel they need. Until our local public FM
station stops compressing the crap out of classical music, I think they
should send ME money, so I can build my basic repertoie collection and
listen to music the way it was performed in the first damn place.
(Gosh, this feels great!)
David Anthony
CDE
DataSpan, Incfred@mot.UUCP (Fred Christiansen) (09/12/85)
maybe i've missed this point, so forgive me: if i watch network TV,
i am paying to watch it indirectly (the cost to the advertisers is passed
thru in the cost of the product). if i watch cable TV, i am paying to
watch it directly (the monthly or whatever cable charge). if i watch
satellite TV, using my own dish, i am paying for it (cost a fair bundle
to get that baby!). so i'm *NOT* freeloading.
i recognize the cable people may get upset over the intercept.
but the solution is for them to get into the satellite dish business
(Yes, Mr. Customer, we're glad to serve you. How do you want it?
Monthly cable charges or monthly payments on these fantastic dishes?)
besides there are gobs of places not served by cable (and not too
well by networks, either). e.g., ever drive thru northern CA or Oregon?
--
<< Generic disclaimer >>
Fred Christiansen ("Canajun, eh?") @ Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ
UUCP: {seismo!terak, trwrb!flkvax, utzoo!mnetor, ihnp4!btlunix}!mot!fred
ARPA: oakhill!mot!fred@ut-sally.ARPA AT&T: 602-438-3472dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (09/15/85)
The solution for CATV companies to "get into satellite TV" is a very
sticky legal issue. About 5 years ago, some podunk CATV ma-and-pa operation
wanted to essentially open a ColorTyme or U-Rent franchise. Then, for one
monthly payment, you'd get cable TV and the receiver(s) to watch it on.
(From a technical standpoint, this isn't a bad idea. I'd much rather see
the Zenith Z-TAC decoder inside the tv set instead of the demod-remod thing
on top of my TV; then I'd get BTSC stereo sound at home!!!!!)
However, someone pitched a holy conniption fit over this, and it is now
standard practice to include an "anti equipment leasing", directly or otherwise,
in franchise agreements with communities/CATV state boards/whatever. This
includes repair, sale, leasing..... (This may even go further back, coming
to think of it - I seem to remember something about the Greensboro, NC
people wanting to adjust IF amplifier response in certain receivers for a
fee (because the people had sloppy sets back then with poor trapping) and
that was thumbs down, also!)
I think it was in New York that the state's goody-goody CATV commission
tried to achieve the same objective (make sure that delivery of video was
over the air or through duly licensed CATV operators) by making illegal
the construction of earth stations and SMATV facilities, even though some
of the SMATV operators were duly licensed by the service(s) they carried!
This didn't work, either, ol' Charlie Ferris's boys stepped in.
The real solution to this whole mess is to leave the electronic media
alone, deregulate the heck out of it (except for technical matters such as
harmful interference and so on) and let good old American engineering solve
the problem of "freeloaders" with a profit motive! Things could be worse;
most of the "network" stuff on Anik (ITV, BCTV) is scrambled anyway! Last
I looked, you could only get CBC.
David Anthony
DataSpan, Inc
.rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (09/17/85)
> I think there's rather a lot of misconception floating around regarding > this issue. Part of my work is in the satellite communications area > so I track these issues pretty closely. > > There have been a number of different legal events and laws regarding > this area, and I'm not going to try specify them, but rather just > explain the backround and outcome as I understand them. > > --- > > First of all, the oft-quoted old Communications Act doesn't really > say you can listen/watch to whatever you want. It essentially says you can > receive "broadcast" signals so long as you don't divulge the contents nor > receive "benefit" from them. Interpretations of this law have > long held that intercepting point-to-point telephone microwave > transmissions can be construed as wiretapping, by the way. I'm > simplifying to some extent regarding the Act, but you get the idea. The real issue is the basic principles of the ORIGINAL Communications Act, the primary Charter of the Federal Communications Commission. The premise of the FCC was that the "ether" (electromagnetic spectrum) was considered PUBLIC PROPERTY. In effect, without proper regulation, the entire spectrum would be on giant "CB" band. EMI regulations, Liscensing,... are all means of protecting the integrety of the various bandwdths of the spectrum. In fact, the ONLY spectrum user with any right to privacy at all is the Defence Department. One 194? precedent even challenged that. Therefore, if a person/corporation wishes to obtain a liscence and use "broadcast" media to transmit information, they do so with the implicit understanding that they waive the right to privacy (It is theoreticly legal to monitor a long distance call if it is broadcast by satellite. In fact, the only value of a channel is the ability for people to recieve it. Unfortunately, since about 1980, the FCC has all but abandoned the original charter and principles on which it was based. Various rulings have attempted to make the taping, reproduction, and use of signals recieved illegal. Even though the precedents have been set by rulings, the basic charter has been violated. Even the basic requirements of Commercial Stations to provide "Public Service" are no longer valid. If the FCC terminated all ham/CB liscences, and allowed all broadcast stations to "Charge" for the priviledge of recieving their signal (including AM/FM and all TV bands), the public would be outraged. But because it affects only a select few at a time, the precedents are being methodically set up to do exactly that. Instead of needing a liscence to "transmit", we will, in effect, need a liscence to recieve. Suppose the frequencies being used effected human health (X-Rays). Do you suppose we would allow the Commercial station to DEMAND payment for the priveledge of recieving these cancer causing rays? Perhaps the day will come when a "radio rebellion" will occurr, could you imagine the effect of every ham/cb operater running their old ham gear ad satelite frequencies for even 10 minutes? When I got my first General Class liscence, the frequencies now used for satellite and microwave transmissions were ham bands, now they want to charge for the use of the reciever!
brad@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Brad Spear) (09/17/85)
In article <262@mot.UUCP> fred@mot.UUCP (Fred Christiansen) writes: > ... if i watch network TV, i am paying to watch it indirectly ... > ... if i watch cable TV, i am paying to watch it directly ... > ... if i watch satellite TV, using my own dish, i am paying for it (cost a > fair bundle to get that baby!). so i'm *NOT* freeloading. It may be costing you, but the provider is making zilch. In the first two cases, the entity that is providing the service sees a return. That is: 1) company pays for spot, recoups losses with additional price on product and profits by increased sales 2) company provides transmission lines or home decoder boxes and the electronics to transmit the channels, makes their profit by providing and charging for this service. In the third case however, companies are paying the owner of the satellite for the ability to use it for their own purposes or to sell their transmissions to cable companies. When you receive that signal, you are freeloading on their information; they do not get paid for it unless the signal is scrambled and you rent a decoder from them, which immediately puts you in case 2 above. The only ones who profit from this are the commercial channels transmitted via satellite, which becomes case 1 above, and the companies that make satellite dishes, downconverters and the lot. Of course, receiving satellite transmissions could be made into case two if the originators made some deal with the satellite manufacturers, and caused a fee to be passed on to you for the service. Brad Spear sdcrdcf!brad
maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) (09/17/85)
> The real solution to this whole mess is to leave the electronic media > alone, deregulate the heck out of it (except for technical matters such as > harmful interference and so on) and let good old American engineering solve > the problem of "freeloaders" . . . Come on - there you go along with everyone else. You just ruined your objective by including an exclusion clause. Why not go all the way and let the industry solve all of its own problems including interference. Eliminate the FCC. Once you stipulate something to regulate (harmfull interference, you open the floodgates for other exceptions. Mark Allyn WA1SEY !uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!maa
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (09/24/85)
In article <253@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: > Suppose the frequencies being used effected human health (X-Rays). > Do you suppose we would allow the Commercial station to DEMAND payment > for the priveledge of recieving these cancer causing rays? > ... > When I got my first General Class liscence, the frequencies now > used for satellite and microwave transmissions were ham bands, > now they want to charge for the use of the reciever! Microwaves *do* effect human health. Can you say "cataract"? (along with many other things) Snoopy tektronix!hammer!seifert tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
pete@ecrcvax.UUCP (Pete Delaney) (09/26/85)
Also, the FCC isn't cheap. Looks like the $200,000,000,000 deficit will hit $300,000,000,000 in just a few years. Really, see todays Wall Street Jorunal. Thats only a few hundred thousand per family. Then there is the un-funded debt; Social Security and Military Pensions. I've seen government figures indicating it to be about 10 times as large. Looks like soon the USA will be yet another courpse of a country. -- -------------------------------------------- Pete Delaney - Rocky Mnt. Unix Consultant Phone: (49) 89 92699-139 European Computer-Industry Research Center UUCP: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!pete ArabellaStrasse 17 UUCP Domain: pete@ecrcvax.UUCP D-8000 Muenchen 81, West Germany X25: (262)-45890040262 CSNET:pete%ecrcvax.UUCP@Germany.CSNET Login: <to be provided?> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/27/85)
> > Suppose the frequencies being used effected human health (X-Rays). > > Microwaves *do* effect human health... Intensity matters. You *emit* microwaves, remember, as does any warm object. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) (09/30/85)
In article <144@ecrcvax.UUCP> pete@ecrcvax.UUCP (Pete Delaney) writes: >Also, the FCC isn't cheap. Looks like the $200,000,000,000 deficit will hit >$300,000,000,000 in just a few years. Really, see todays Wall Street Jorunal. >Thats only a few hundred thousand per family. $200,000,000,000 / 200,000,000 people = $1,000 / person I guess that means several hundred people per family (to get to "a few hundred thousand per family").
pete@ecrcvax.UUCP (Pete Delaney) (10/07/85)
In article <unc.99> rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) writes: >In article <144@ecrcvax.UUCP> pete@ecrcvax.UUCP (Pete Delaney) writes: >>Also, the FCC isn't cheap. Looks like the $200,000,000,000 deficit will hit >>$300,000,000,000 in just a few years. Really, see todays Wall Street Journal. >>Thats only a few hundred thousand per family. > >$200,000,000,000 / 200,000,000 people = $1,000 / person > >I guess that means several hundred people per family (to get to "a >few hundred thousand per family"). Looks like you cought me; my mistake. $200 Billion is "just" the Deficit for this year. I guess the funded debt then at $2 Trillion would be "just" $10,000 / person. And of course as we all know (dont we?) the unfunded debt is somewhere between 3 and 10 times the funded debt. You know good old social in-security, milatary pensions, etc. I even heard a congressmen today actually say something about the constitutional ammendment stoping a Bidgit Deficit not being significant because all the really important stuff isn't in the budget; well at least he was being a bit honest. So if we optimisticly estimate a unfunded debt of say $10 to $20 Trillion that would be JUST $50,000 to $100,000 per person. I left my economic literature in storage, else I could give you the offical actuarry figures. Of course we have a congressive (sic alias: progressive) tax structure that puts a significantly larger part of that burden on us UNIX hackers, doctors, etc... I was really impressed that they are TALKING about PROMISSING a balanced budget by 1991. a. It's curently be discussed in Washington, DO SOMETHING! b. Promisses by governments are usually broken. c. What about the unfunded stuff? it's more important! d. What about the current trend? $ +50 * $ 0 * * * * * * * * * * $-50 * * * * * * * * * * $-100 * * $-150 * * * * $-200 * * * $-250 ? ? ? ? $-300 ? ? ? $-350 ? ? $-400 ? ? $-450 ? ? $-500 ? 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 So, by this simple graphical extrapolation it currently looks like by 1990: Yearly Deficit: $-500Billion/Yr $2,500/Yr/Person Federal Debt: $4 Trillion $20,000/Person + + + Unfunded Dept: $20 to 50 Trillion $100,000 to 250,000/Person -------------- ------------------ -------------------------- Total Fed Debt: $25 to 55 Trillion $120,000 to $270,000/Person ( HALF A MILLION ) ( PER UNIX HACKER ) Of course the congressive tax will shift the major part of that burden to those with something still left to take. Now, you could call up your congressional aids and demand that they balance the TOTAL budget NOW. But like most civilizations we won't respond to the threat until their knife is up against our throats. Oh yes, there is another solution. The Federal Reserve open market commitee can 'buy' the tressury dept and then issue Federal Reserve Notes on it. After all Debt is good collateral, right? It's called printing money. Marx promoted it as a way to distroy a free/market-based society. Sorry for flaming so long and posting in net.general. If you care, a quick phone call to Washington MIGHT help. -- -------------------------------------------- Pete Delaney - Rocky Mnt. Unix Consultant Phone: (49) 89 92699-139 European Computer-Industry Research Center UUCP: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!pete ArabellaStrasse 17 UUCP Domain: pete@ecrcvax.UUCP D-8000 Muenchen 81, West Germany X25: (262)-45890040262 CSNET:pete%ecrcvax.UUCP@Germany.CSNET Login: <to be provided?> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pete@ecrcvax.UUCP (Pete Delaney) (10/21/85)
I fear we seem to be helpless at stoping this system from devoring us. President Regean said he was against stoping the red ink if it cut's into the Star Wars project. What's the sense in this madness? Yet another tear shed for our lost liberty. I wish my county loved us as much as we love it. -- -------------------------------------------- Pete Delaney - Rocky Mnt. Unix Consultant Phone: (49) 89 92699-139 European Computer-Industry Research Center UUCP: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!pete ArabellaStrasse 17 UUCP Domain: pete@ecrcvax.UUCP D-8000 Muenchen 81, West Germany X25: (262)-45890040262 CSNET:pete%ecrcvax.UUCP@Germany.CSNET Login: <to be provided?> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------