🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7345@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>
>Sounds good, but back in the mists of prehistory it was decided
>definitively (with respect to Wollongong) that no one wants to pay the
>bills for another company's technical support.  If you use the Internet
>for such commercial purposes, you are doubly at fault.  It's too bad,
>and people may have loosened up somewhat since, but I still don't think
>this is an appropriate announcement.

	I don't mean to protract this discussion, but I think that
there are some points to be clarified.

	First, if the net under discussion is "usenet" then there are
standards for postings that include prohibitions [too strong, perhaps
discouragements] against commercial advertising.

	If the net under discussion is the Internet, then the
situation is different.  The ARPAnet had prohibitions on traffic
unrelated to DARPA business.  Unenforceable.  The prohibition was
informally relaxed, but discouraged "commercial" activity and customer
support was classified as such, I believe.

	This situation has most definitely changed in the new NSF
sponsored Internet.  The question of customer support on the NSF
sponsored Internet (the Merit-run backbone and the "regionals") has
been specifically raised and it is acceptable to NSF, in my and others
interpretations.

	The NSF is drafting an acceptable use policy for wide
distribution, but it will say things like "in support of research and
education" and most everyone expects it to be broadly interpreted.

	Of course, I do not speak for the NSF.  They speak for
themselves and often.  :-)

	Cayman need make no apology, in my opinion, for offering
customer support on the Internet.  All their competitors have an equal
shot at joining the Internet.

	Of course, eventually all commercial organizations offering
customer support on the Internet and benefiting thereby will be
required to pay their share of costs.  This includes Cayman.

	Kent England, Boston U