Telecom-REQUEST@MIT-XX.ARPA (Moderator) (08/31/85)
TELECOM Digest Friday, August 30, 1985 7:33PM
Volume 5, Issue 29
Today's Topics:
Re: Loss of freedom in communications!
Satellite viewing "freedoms" (long)
hooking up volksmodem
digest vs. direct mail
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 85 9:22:32 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-2>
Subject: Re: Loss of freedom in communications!
As a sidenote to this discussion, I recall running across a copy of a
House bill in the government-documents-repository section of my
university library (this was back in the early 60s) which was a
resolution or proposed legislation that explicitly stated that "No
regulation or law shall be interpreted to in any way restrict the
right of any individual to receive any or all signals transmitted via
the electromagnetic spectrum" (or words to that effect). However,
sadly, I believe that this, one of the few worthwhile pieces of
legislation I have ever read, was never passed. Too bad. If it had
been, this nonsense would have never arisen.
Will
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 10:14:01 PDT
From: vortex!lauren@rand-unix.ARPA (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Satellite viewing "freedoms" (long)
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--
------------------------------
Date: 30 Aug 85 04:34 GMT
From: meaders @ KOREA-EMH
Subject: hooking up volksmodem
i am having some trouble hooking up my volksmodem to my
7710 equiped apple ii. it seems that the pin interconnects
are the same for the 7710 serial card and the volksmodem.
can anyone give me a hand?
note: for those of you wondering why i'm using a 300 baud
modem, the telephone lines to the ddn node at taegu from
here in seoul barely support 300baud much less 1200.
m2
.
------------------------------
Date: Fri 30 Aug 85 19:24:16-EDT
From: Jon Solomon <JSOL@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: digest vs. direct mail
If there is enough interest, I am going to be making available a direct
mail option for telecom subscribers. I will continue to maintain
TELECOM as a digest for those who wish it.
If you are interested in the direct mail option, please send mail
to telecom-request. I want to see how much demand there is for it.
Note: USENET sites reading the digest as newsgroup fa.telecom
will be automatically included in this, so if you are already
reading it there, you need not send mail to me.
Cheers,
--JSol
p.s. I remember sending this before, but perhaps it didn't make
it to print.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
*********************