telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (11/11/84)
From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>
TELECOM Digest Sun, 11 Nov 84 1:35:16 EST Volume 4 : Issue 117
Today's Topics:
Re: Signalman XII
RE: LA BBS case
BBS owner.
Anchor Signalman
BBS's -- who is responsible?
TARRIFS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 13:43:47 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Signalman XII
To: bang!crash!bblue@NOSC
Cc: INFO-MICRO@BRL, TELECOM@MC
Another problem with that modem is that it apparently doesn't
support standard DTR! This means that all enabling of incoming
calls and all hanging up of calls must be handled through online commands
to the modem, which most standard software, quite rightly, does
not support. The lack of DTR support brands this modem a NO BUY
in my opinion. DTR is a MINIMUM requirement for any modem.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 13:05:57 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
Subject: RE: LA BBS case
To: CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20
Cc: TELECOM@MC
I'm not claiming that current legal remedies are "correct" for such
situations, but I don't feel that BBS operators can properly be
considered to be "blameless" in such situations either.
As for your "number on the side of your house wall analogy"...
I don't buy it. You don't promote the concept of people coming by
your house at all hours to read your wall! If you did, you might
be more concerned about checking that wall from time to time. The
BBS's, by their very existence, are actively promoting the idea that
people should use them. For your wall analogy to work, you'd have to
take out an ad somewhere saying, "Come read my wall, it's fun and
interesting!" There is a significant difference between a random
message in a random place and and an entity (like a BBS) set up
explicitly for the purpose of sending and receiving messages.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 1984 19:11 EST
From: GZT.KEITH%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA
Subject: BBS owner.
Hhhhmmmm...
As I see it, the BBS operator should be convicted of felony-
stupidity. I was a SYSOP for about one year. You cannot got through
a week without knowing most (if not all) of the messages on your
board.
I don't know how he ran his board, but I would hope that he would have
the sense to get on the board every once in a while and read some of
the messages. If not only to read the feed-back from its users,
atleast to see how his board was doing.
I admit, there were two or three message bases I never looked at, but
at the end of the week, it was almost impossible not to see messages
of questionable nature, (when doing backups or clearing the message
bases for more space). I also remember getting messages concerning
certain posts, (usually about jokes of questionable taste).
I would think, (hope), that a user would bring up the fact that
something illegal was posted on the board (unless ofcourse if they
expected something of that nature on there. ie, the BBS itself
supported illegal activities.)
But after all this, I don't think that the BBS owner should be
prosecuted. I think the law should get on the BBS owners that openly
allow posts of questionable nature on their boards. There are plenty
out there; owned, operated, and used by twelve year olds that get a
kick out of charging their phone bills to little-old ladies from
Tescalusca, Kansas. (exageration, but you get the point). I don't
see how the law can criminally neglect these systems that they would
have an open and shut case against but arrest a BBS owner on
questionable charges.
End of randomness..
Keith
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 9 Nov 1984 16:35:06-PST
From: goldberg_1%viking.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Marshall R. Goldberg LJ02/E4 DTN 282-2325)
To: telecom@bbncca.ARPA
Subject: Anchor Signalman
I operate two BBS's running with tested BELL 212 modems.
Several callers have problems with overloading using the Signalman
modem. One user solves the problem by leaving hi telephone handset
off hook. Another user returned his modem and got a Qubie.
Marshall
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 19:06:54 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
Subject: BBS's -- who is responsible?
To: TELECOM@MC
I think the key element of this discussion revolves around who
is responsible for the messages on a BBS. Now, if all users were
*known* in some manner to the BBS operator (via confirmed address/phone
number info, for example, and maybe signed statements of "BBS rule
understanding") then I can see how a BBS operator might be able to
freely operate without *much* concern for message content in most
cases. But to the entent that a BBS allow anonymous, unverified use,
SOMEBODY must take responsibility, and it's going to have to
be the operator, since in most cases there is NO WAY to find the
originator of a libelous or illegal message!
If we accept the concept that certain sorts of messages are
illegal (soliciting for stolen goods, as a very simple example)
there would seem to be a need for SOMEONE to be responsible! Otherwise,
the potential for abuse (and for such unfortunate events as lawsuits)
is pretty large.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: Sat 10 Nov 84 15:44:28-PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <MYERSTON@SRI-KL.ARPA>
Subject: TARRIFS
To: Telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA
If you want to get copies of the actual tarriffs you have two choices,
either deal with the FCC and the various state regulatory agencies or
subscribe to a service which will provide them to you.
We use United Technologies MIS 8049 W Chester Pike Upper Darby, PA 19082
Tel (215) 853-4850.
Be prepared to spend considerable amount of time in filing and posting.
There are imnumerable varities, inter Service Area (ex LATA),
intra-Service Area, inter state, different carriers etc. They range in
size from the AT&T WATS (FCC #2) in one 2 inch binder to the Pacific
Bell California Tariff in 10 four inch binders and growing.
-------
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
******************************