1994-08-19 - Re: EFF on why they did it.

Header Data

From: cactus@bb.com (L. Todd Masco)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: b9dc94389c6b5f0e3524d17c03a5519712f72fa4658812e06ec061fff83665a4
Message ID: <330uve$am9@ship.bb.com>
Reply To: <9408182314.AA22475@anchor.ho.att.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-08-19 00:34:28 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 17:34:28 PDT

Raw message

From: cactus@bb.com (L. Todd Masco)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 17:34:28 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: EFF on why they did it.
In-Reply-To: <9408182314.AA22475@anchor.ho.att.com>
Message-ID: <330uve$am9@ship.bb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

In article <9408182314.AA22475@anchor.ho.att.com>,
bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204 <wcs@anchor.ho.att.com> wrote:
>David Lesher writes:
>> No money, not wiretaps. That may {or may not} limit the effect of FBI
>> Wiretap, depending on how [much/little] the Hill loosens the
>> pursestrings.
>It's certainly a good start, but the government *does* have other money.

Indeed.  I'd really like to see the wording about how they actually need
 to be paid for: namely, will allowing tariffs to be raised by RBOCs
 count as "paying for it"?

They could spend the money by doing two things:

	- Mandating the money be spent (the DT bill)
	- and then allowing the RBOCs to increase their tariffs.

Presto!  We've paid for the mechanisms, but not through the federal
 budgets.  The RBOCs have been pushing for high bandwidth R&D increases
 of their general tariffs for a really long time, so I could certainly
 see them playing along as long as there's room for other R&D in there.

Just a thought...
L. Todd Masco  | "Cowboy politicians sucking up to the aristocracy, not
cactus@bb.com  |  even sure if they like democracy..."  - TR-I