From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Jun 21 00:39:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA17126; Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:39:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:39:30 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199706210439.AAA17126@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: editor@telecom-digest.org Subject: MsgGroup and Early Usenet History Something special for your review over the weekend. PAT From: rh120@labdien.cc.columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: MsgGroup and Early Usenet: Man-Computer Systems Date: 16 Jun 1997 13:53:13 GMT Organization: Columbia University Following is a draft paper I have worked on this past term for a History and Technology Seminar at Columbia U. The paper is on the early MsgGroup Mailing list, one of the early ARPANET Mailing lists and early Usenet. I welcome comments and suggestions, etc toward reworking it. Ronda rh120@columbia.edu ronda@umcc.umich.edu ARPANET Mailing Lists and Usenet Newsgroups Creating an Open and Scientific Process for Technology Development and Diffusion by Ronda Hauben rh120@columbia.edu (Part 1 of 6) Introduction In an article in the journal "The Information Society", Luciano Floridi from Wolfson College at Oxford, notes the importance of the Internet and how it has generated an excitement and promise for the future. Floridi writes: [L]ast year the Internet finally appeared to the general public as the most revolutionary phenomenon since the invention of telephones, though in this case Time missed the opportunity to elect the Internet Man of the Year.(1) Floridi, contrasts the significance of the new development represented by the Internet with the relative lack of scholarly study and knowledge about its development: A whole population of several million people interacts by means of the global network. It is the most educated intellectual community that ever appeared on earth, a global academy that, like a unique Leibnizian mind, thinks always. The Internet is a completely new world, about which we seem to know very little....its appearance has found most of us, and especially the intellectual community, thoroughly unprepared. However, to "know" something it is helpful to look at its early development, as that is when its form and principles are most clearly articulated. The foundation for the Internet was set by the development of the ARPANET(b. 1969) and Usenet(b. 1979), which were connected to each other in the early 1980s. This paper will examine some of the early computer conferencing research work to link those on different computers or using different operating systems on the ARPANET and then on Usenet. It will explore how the foundation was set to promote computer facilitated communication, which was some of the scientific and collaborative work which made the Internet possible. There will be an effort to quote early pioneers when possible to give an indication of the process as well as the result of their work. Part I Support for a Scientific Methodology Writing in the 1960s, the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas described a scientific methodology developed by the U.S. Air Force to solve difficult technological problems. He outlines the process of communication established between those contractors who would work on a problem and the Air Force personnel involved, the importance placed on communication to identify the precise nature of the problem, and then the combining of practice and theory to develop a methodology to solve the problem.(2) Such a collaborative communication process was developed via the early mailing list MsgGroup on the ARPANET and this process helped to make it possible to develop and expand the ARPANET into the Internet. ARPA and the ARPANET When the Soviet Union lauched Sputnik I, the world's first man man satellite on October 4, 1957, they took the world by surprise. In the U.S., President Eisenhower summoned scientists to provide advice to the White House on how to advance U.S. science and technical developments. Believing that the competition within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) was a problem that had to be solved if the U.S. was to advance in its ability to do forefront scientific and technological development, Secretary of Defense Neil McElroy created a new agency, apart from the three existing branches of the services. This new agency, the Advanced Research and Projects Agency (ARPA) was to provide support for advanced space research. By the early 1960's, ARPA recognized the need to expand its scope, and J.C.R. Licklider was brought in to head a new office that would take on research in computer science. Licklider served as the first head of the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) at ARPA from 1962 to 1964. The earliest work of the IPTO was to fund research in the time-sharing of computers, to make interactive computing available in a way not possible with the batch operated computers common at the time.(3) By the late 1960's however, time sharing of computers had developed and there were different computer time sharing systems around the U.S. Those at ARPA began to envision a linking up of these different systems so that the resources could be shared and so those using different computer hardware and software would be able to communicate with each other.(4) Also, the work of pioneers like Paul Baran at RAND in the U.S. and Donald W. Davies working in the United Kingdom, indicated that a more economical form of data transmission, i.e. packet switching, would provide an appropriate technology for data transmission. Recognizing the need to do research in creating a computer data network that would make it possible to share resources among researchers doing work on different hardware and software platforms, a contract was awarded to BBN to begin the construction of a subnetwork that would connect various ARPA contractors at universities and other sites with ARPA contracts. The new network became known as the ARPANET. Those connected to the ARPANET grew rapidly and by the mid 1970's there was the recognition that a new form of communication had developed on the ARPANET called electronic mail or more commonly, email. MsgGroup Begins In a message submitted to the Msggroup mailing list dated June 7 1975, Steve Walker, of ARPA (IPTO) and Net Manager of the ARPANET(5) describes a proposal for communication research on the early ARPANET. He writes that he is "seeking to establish a group of people concerned with message processing" in order to "develop a sense of what is mandatory, what is nice, and what is not desirable." He notes, "We have a lot of experience with lots of services and should be able to collect our thoughts on the matter." The methodology he proposes, however, is of particular importance. He is encouraging the creation of a new form of computer conferencing to be developed on the early ARPANET. "My goal," he writes, "at present is not to establish 'another committee' but to see if dialogue can develop over the net." He notes that there is probably something less formal already occurring, but he wants to broaden it to be able to include more of those who could make a contribution. Participation will be encouraged, but it is voluntary. "I do not wish to force anyone to participate," he explains, "but I strongly urge anyone with comments (positive or negative) to toss them in." Also, the form of participation was to be open ended, rather than requiring particular kinds of contribution. "While supporting philosophical discussions," he writes, "I like very much the specifics of ... evaluation ... can we try to do this," he asks, promising that "the results may surprise many of us." He requests that the participants "encourage a FORUM-type set up if it's not too difficult to set up, realizing that many (myself included) will have little time to contribute." Though he recognizes that such sporatic participation may be thought to fragment the group, he proposed they should be made and will prove to be a contribution. "I've asked Dave Farber to maintain a list of Message Group participants," he continues, noting that Dave Farber, then on the faculty at the University of California Irvine, a participant on the ARPANET, would help facilitate participation in the online forum Walker was proposing. Extending his invitation to newcomers to be full participants without feeling they have to gather any particular background, he explains, "those who don't wish to have their message files filled with possible `junk mail' should feel free to withdraw." But he expresses the hope that it will be possible "from all this to develop a long term strategy for where message services should go on the ARPAnet and indeed in the DoD." And Walker ends his message by encouraging participation, "Let's have at it." The mid 1970's was a period of change in developing the usefulness of computer mail on the ARPANET. Previous to 1975, the creation of programs making email possible on the ARPANET was more of an informal undertaking, according to a study of ARPANET email posted to MsgGroup by Raymond R. Panko(6). Panko notes the earliest work in developing email capabilities grew up on the earliest time sharing systems funded by ARPA in the early 1960s. "But the value of computer mail had become obvious to ARPA by the beginning of 1975," he writes how ARPA had, like a number of other...organizations, had begun to use computer mail for its bread and butter communication and had become aware that a relatively mature communication medium was becoming available. It was against this background of increasing interest by ARPA in email that Steve Walker issued the invitation to take part in an online conference to develop a computer conferencing system. Farber responded to Walker's invitation, "I too second the motion of Steve to Let's have at it."(7) Farber promises to maintain a file of correspondence for those who participate in case they miss any of the messages or do "not feel like making like a file clerk." Those involved agree to accept the challenge of exploring how to create a network conferencing system using ARPAnet communication. In considering the difficulties of using such technology during this period in the mid 1970s, David Crocker, at the University of Southern California presented his evaluation of three possible programs that those on MsgGroup could use to form their online conference. One of the programs was FORUM, a conferencing system developed under DoD funding by Murray Turnoff at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. Crocker explains that this conferencing system "has a long start-up curve and requires that all paticipants have access to the same machine."(7) Another proposed conferencing program TCTalk, Crocker notes, "requires that all have operating access to the operating system Tenex," which was one of the operating systems used by some of those on the ARPANET.(8) Since those on the ARPAnet were using a variety of different computers and several different operating systems, Crocker believed that neither a program dependent upon a single type of computer nor one requiring a particular operating system would be appropriate. Instead he explained that there was a program being used to send email on the ARPANET (i.e. Net Mail) that was already being used by those on the ARPAnet and it made communication between users with diverse computer systems and operating systems possible. Crocker also noted some of the other advantages of Net Mail. He wrote(9): Use of Net Mail a) is extrememly convenient for most, if not all, of us, since we already exercise it for other activities; b) allows passive observation of the dialogue, rather than forcing everyone to explicitly catch up on recent comments....; c) mail is easily deleted and so "junk" mail is not really a serious problem. Most, if not all of us, have mail reading systems which allow a "menu" review of mail, prior to reading the contents. Proposing that Net Mail will best satisfy the aims of the research, he writes: "I have spent the better part of this spring looking at our teleconferencing capabilities (as part of a seminar...) and as a result, suggest we continue to use Network mail as our communication tool, rather than using TCTALK or FORUM." Listing the participants in MsgGroup at this early period and the sites where they have their computer accounts(10), Farber identifies Burchfiel, Myer and Gilbert from Bolt Beranek and Newman, the Cambridge, MA contractor who created the IMP subnetwork for the ARPANET. He lists Tasker, McLinden, Walker, Farber, Stefferud, Ellis, Kirstein, Iseli, Dave Crocker, and Paul Bara. at ISI at the University of Southern California. At Office-1, he lists Uhlig and Watson, at MIT-DMS, Vezza, and at Harvard-10, Mealy. In a message noting the promising potential of this new form of computer networking communication, another early MsgGroup participant(11), Tasker writes, "Sitting here in the offices of a potential military user...I am extremely gratified and excited to see the msg group interacting and that those interactions appear to be converging around real capabilities that I think can be sold to the operational military guy. A scant three or four months ago I never would have even hoped for the current state of affairs and the direction it indicates." In a similar vein, Ron Uhlig at Office 1 expressed his enthusiastic support for MsgGroup. Describing the informal project he was working on for the Army Material Command (AMC), he wrote(12): For those of you unfamiliar with our "experiment" in Army Materiel Command, we have been using OFFICE 1 for communication among seven of the key managers in data processing in Army Materiel Command (AMC)....In general, we have had the same kind of experience in improved communication that ARPA had when they began using a message system on the network. Continuing major cuts in the Army Materiel Command work force plus some fairly major reorganizations which are now being planned are leading us to give serious consideration to adopting an on-line computer based message system for key managers throughout the command. We are in the early stages of trying to define what such a system needs to look like.... Since we are aiming more at the informal communications we are not terribly concerned with the DOD traditions... Our primary concern is that the message system be easily usable by noncomputer science people, some of whom are actively hostile to computers in general. The demonstrations that we have given to various noncomputer science, non technical personnel around AMC have generally been well received. But one must know far too much "computerese" to use any of the existing systems." Elaborating on the need for online conferencing, he writes: We have a strong need for teleconferencing because our key managers are greatly dispersed geographically. The message system that we eventually adopt needs a teleconference capability. We don't want message handling and teleconferencing to be in two separate systems. Because of this we also want to make it easy in the middle of a message based teleconference to link to a data bank somewhere in AMC to pick up information which is needed at that point in time. An FTP type capability, simple to use for the novice, would meet the need very nicely. Concluding his comments, he promises continued feedback: As we get better definition on our requirements during the next few months I will put additional messages into the network to keep you all current on our thinking. This message is only intended to be introductory.(10) A subsequent message by Crocker suggested they ignore authentication issues, whcih like other security issues, were considered secondary and were avoided for the time being.(13). Given the current state of network/system/mail security, I suggest we ignore authentication issues. Summarizing the progress made in the first month since the beginnings of the new form of network communication, Steve Walker writes(14): The MsgGroup...was formed...by a group of interested people commenting on how message services should appear to users (as opposed to how they should function internally.) I'm pleased with the progress of this `conference'. I am trying to arrange for Stefferud to serve as a `paid' organizer so that the groups ramblings can come out in a coherent form. I would encourage your continued participation here and in groups such as Dave Farber's Compcom get together. Part II Vision of New Form of Computer Communication Documenting the success of the work done by those on MsgGroup and subsequent ARPANET mailing lists, a report prepared for a technical conference in 1979 by several MsgGroup participants, observed that there had been important advances in email and conferencing capabilities. (15) The report explained how these achievements are not only a natural outgrowth of technological advances, but also the result of the convergence of communication and computers. "In various current networks of computers," they write, "large numbers (thousands) of individuals and agencies are able to communicate among themselves via message exchange using many different computers and terminals in the process." This was not an easy feat to achieve. Their report notes the value to people who have access to these computer message services (CMS). They write(16): Those who have access will be able to communicate through the CMS facilites with others who have access as the number of connected individuals and agencies grows, the value of being connected will grow....The key source of value lies in the range of easily addressable potential communication. In the development of MsgGroup conferencing efforts, several describe the unique capabilities that a mailing list like MsgGroup has made available to those participating. For example, in a post, Pickers(17) describes how a mailing list creates a participatory process that is superior to what traditional meetings could make possible. He writes: Unlike normal conferences, where there are limited microphones, a chairperson and where audience energy tends to wear down, MSGGROUP style conferencing never resolve issues much less adjourns. This effect follows naturally from the observation that every participant reenters the discussion by choice, perhaps following a recuperative and regenerative period of rest. Others on MsgGroup consider the problem of emotional messages (also known as flaming). However, Gaines, in a post(18), proposes that such problems are secondary and should be recognized as "the price we have to pay for an open discussion group where people are free to voice their ideas....We must expect that this whole process produces a fair amount of nonsense...." Most importantly, however, he points out: We are feeling our way in a murky area, and have to expect to make mistakes. Let us judge the msggroup by the good ideas that surface which by the nature of the area have to be expected to be few and far between but worth the overhead of the other traffic when they arrive. Emphasizing the unique nature of the contributions to MsgGroup, Charles Frankston with a login at MIT, warned that analogies between electronic mail and telephone and paper communications must be made very carefully. Electronic mail, he writes(19), "is a new medium and it may not necessarily make sense to use it in the same fashion as existing medium, any more than it would have made sense to use telephones in precisely the same fashion as telegraphs that preceeded them." Observing that "electronic mail is currently used extensively for communications which today does go to many recipients," he cites interoffice memos as an example. "As a new medium I also claim electronic mail has generated new uses not heretofore possible, he continues, "For example, most of my use of the medium consists of back and forth technical discussions, often among persons widely dispersed geographically....In fact, the great advantage of electronic mail for this sort of use, is that it is easy to simply cc anyone I think might be interested or have information to provide on the current topic." Another report, titled "The Convergence of Computing and Telecommunications System," by Dave Farber and packet switching pioneer Paul Baran, was posted to MsgGroup(20). Farber and Baran were able to collaborate to write the report via the ARPANET despite the fact they lived in geographically different regions of the U.S. In the report, they wrote that "A major change in computer communication is taking place....Tomorrow, computer communication systems will be the rule for remote collaboration." Problems and Benefits In their report, Farber and Baran observed that the falling costs of computing would lead to a situation where certain industries and institutions would feel threatened by the "prospect of obsolescence of their present justification." One such industry they predicted would be publishing. In his study of email, Panko, too, noted a similar barrier to technological development of email and email conferencing. He observed the inability of commercial users to recognize the advantage of email and of the increased communication that email and online conferencing made possible. However, both Panko's study and the report by Farber and Baran emphasized that many others would welcome the new forms of communication that this convergence of computers and communication technology would make possible. Panko pointed to the promising development represented by the 15 million people involved with CB radio in the U.S., out of a possible 70 million households. This promised that a warm welcome would greet the increased ability for communication to be made available via email and email conferencing. Social Issues Become Important Panko documented how government funding of computer science researchers to solve the problem of computer conferencing communication across different computers and different operating systems had yielded great social and technical benefits. He wrote(21): "Historically, computer media were first extensively developed on the ARPANET. Anyone familiar with the Advanced Research Projects Agency (after whom the ARPANET is named) realizes that ARPA was the dominant funder of leading-edge computing during the 1960's. Essentially, ARPA was funding the community of hobby computerists par excellence. Funding was fat and creativity was given free reign during business hours. Moreover, ARPA contractors found their staffs working long overtime, developing space war games, stock market information services, and -- as noted above, computer mail systems. In other words, hobby computering at a grand scale was the original source of many advanced mail systems today. Computer mail had a strong hobbiest flavor in its use as well as in its origins. Colleagues in artificial intelligence, data base design, and other exotic fields used computer mail to build and maintain their community." "Furthermore," he added, "in applications where computer teleconferencing has been successful, discussion has often been free-wheeling and chatty. The longest conferences tend to be breezy and rambling, yet very successful in exchanging ideas and viewpoints...." Thus he noted the great stimulus given to these email developments by the support of government financed programs. In their report, Farber and Baran recognize that social questions would arise as a result of these important new communications developments. And they realized that too little emphasis would be given to examining the social consequences that had to be considered to determine what the future should be for these social developments. For example, the issue of how decisions over the new medium would be made wasn't being given adequate consideration.(22) "Little attention," they wrote, "is paid to the `public interest.' In part, the term defies definition. Is the public interest the interest of the cross- subsidized residential telephone user? Is it the interest of a business which faces a reduced communications bill? Is the public interest to be viewed primarily in the short term irrespective of long term damage to existing institutions in achieving immediate savings." Summarizing the promise for the future that enhanced communication would hold, Lauren Weinstein wrote(23): The whole point of Msggroup to me is that we are free to communicate without undue worry about costs, and to borrow a line from the closing episode of the `Connections' program from PBS, `the easier it is to communicate, the faster change occurs." It is this very change that is creating the systems, concepts and most importantly, the EXPECTATIONS of people for message systems of the future." Part III Government Use at the FCC While the ARPANET was helping to research how ARPA would use online communication, other government entities found it helpful in broadening the mechanism of input into their work. Stephen Lukasik had been a director of ARPA from 1970 until 1975. After he left ARPA (then called DARPA), he spent some time at government contractors Xerox and RAND. By September 1979, he posts on MsgGroup(24): I recently assumed the position of Chief Scientist at the Federal Communications Commission in Washington. He notes that he is looking to fill the position of Deputy Chief Scientist/Engineer who will assist him in directing technical, scientific and engineering activities of his office at the FCC. He also announces that there will be positions in a new Technical Planning Staff within the agency. And he requests input from those on MsgGroup. In October, 1979, Lukasik announced that he was to give the keynote at the December Computer Networking Workshop at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS).(25) "The topic will be regulation of computer communication," he wrote. And he asks for both questions and input into his talk. "I would be interested to know what questions and concerns you have in this area. Your viewpoints would also be welcome." He signed his message Steve Lukasik, Chief Scientist, FCC, and his message included "reply to: LUKASIK@usc-isi" so that replies could be sent to him by email. In February 1981, Stefferud posted an unofficial copy of an FCC Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to MsgGroup, though those interested in receiving an official copy were instructed to write MJMarcus@ISI(26). "This copy is being circulated," the message explained, "via MsgGroup to allow individuals with ARPANET access to comment informally on the NOI. Interested parties may file comments on or before March 16, 1981," Stefferud noted. "You may file informal comments by sending messages to MJMarcus@ISI. To be considered by the FCC, your informal comment should include your full name and U.S. Postal Service Address." Stefferud described how it was even possible to file informal comments via email, "All such messages will be forwarded to the Secretary for filing in the Docket as stated in paragraph 23 of the NOI where informal comments are solicited from DEAF-NET users." DEAF NET was a demonstration telecommunications network project for the deaf funded by Department of Health, Education and Welfare funds. Questions about procedure could be sent by email to Mike Marcus or "with MsgGroup distribution so we may share your questions and answers." "Any discussion of this NOI in the regular manner of group discussion via MsgGroup distribution," Stefferud noted, "will also be made available to the FCC as informal public comments in response to the NOI, and as such will be forwarded to the Secretary for filing in the Docket." "This is a new kind of activity for MsgGroup," Stefferud wrote, "and we hope that it might afford some progress in the use of network facilties for the type of inquiry." He went on to note that the FCC was not sponsoring his actions, but that the FCC staff was aware of what he was doing to facilitate online input into an FCC process. "The use of MsgGroup is not sponsored by the FCC, though it is understood that FCC staff members are aware of our undertaking." The text of the Notice of Inquiry in FCC 80-702 General Docket 80-756 followed as a message to MsgGroup. The issue involved Digital Communications protocol conversions between different networks. Email comments to the U.S. Postal Service Another example of government officials seeking input from MsgGroup participants involved United States Postal Service interface specifications for Electronic Computer-Originated Mail (ECOM). Richard Shuford posting from MIT-AI (27) in a message dated July 8, 1981, noted that there had been an announcement in the Federal Register on June 19, 1981 (page 32111) of a public meeting for questions and comments on the proposed system. That meeting was then held at the Postal Services headquarters in Washington, D.C. However, as there seemed to be no press coverage that the meeting would happen, only "professional Federal Register readers" knew of the meeting to attend it. Shuford described how the result of this situation was that "the meeting was therefore attended only by representatives of large corporations that have some economic interest in what the Postal Service does with electronic mail." However, a few days before this post on MsgGroup Shuford had received a call from a Postal Service consultant who worked at SRI International. The consultant said that he wasn't on the ARPANET but wanted Shuford to send a message to those on the ARPANET for him. "He feels very strongly," wrote Shuford, "that comments on the proposed system should come from a wider variety of `stake-holders' (as he calls them) in the future of electronic mail. In particular, he would like to hear comments from personal computer users and others who are not interested in electronic mail from a purely commercial point of view." He related how the deadline was in 2 weeks on July 23, 1981 and that comments could be sent by regular mail to Charles Shaw, Director of Electronic-Mail Systems Development at the Postal Service Research and Development Laboratory in Maryland. Shuford explained that the consultant was making his request in an unofficial capacity and that therefore comments sent to Harris should not mention his request. In response, Pickers at SRI-UNIX observed(28): "In a message which is sent to 100+ institutions, 200+ individuals and spanning both North America and Europe (5 million square miles), the suggestion to keep an individual's name in confidence seems a bit incongruous." Steve Kudlak, at MIT-MC disagreed. He wrote(29): "ACTUALLY THATS NOT TOO UNREASONABLE TO BELIEVE. We all know the Arpanet is another world and I assume a very high percentage of us are nice enuff to hold someone's name in confidence if they requested it." Several messages later, on July 18, Shuford explains that Ron Newman at Parc-Maxc had located an email address for the consultant and that it was possible to send him one's comments directly by email.(30) "He will then have them printed and will pass them along to the proper people at the Postal Services. Please keep in mind," Shuford emphasized, "that any comments passed along in such a manner are officially regarded as `informal' comments. And that to register `official' opinion, traditional procedures had to be followed." Thus a way to make input directly into a government proceeding was available via email. Many different issues were discussed on MsgGroup and when some on the list suggested limiting what could be discussed, others on the list would invariably complain and encourage a broadness of subjects. Debating the Focus of MsgGroup For example, Brian Reid at Carnegie Mellon University, objected to efforts to limit the discussion on MsgGroup. He wrote(31): MsgGroup is the closest that we have to a nationwide Computer science community forum. MsgGroup is supposedly devoted to topics involving electronic mail. One of the many virtues of computer-based mail systems is their astounding ability to support conferencing. All of us are still learning a lot about the ways in which people communicate over these marvelous mail systems, and about the kinds of discussions that can and cannot be made to work over computer-based mail networks. Despite the large amount of supposed chitchat that passes over MsgGroup... I believe that such conferencing schemes are still very much at the research stage, and that ARPA and the public will ultimately benefit from our experiences using MsgGroup as a nationwide community forum, no matter what the topic at hand. Until such time as people start suggesting the overthrow of our government over MsgGroup, I don't think any sensible topic should be off limits unless you decide that said topic falls outside the scope of MsgGroup. If you decide to restrict the topics that ought to be discussed in MsgGroup, then I submit that there ought to be a "Network-Forum" mailing list which could be a general-purpose forum. The crucial issue for the MsgGroup, however, was seen to be the discussion of message systems and eventually of office automation. In May of 1980, Stefferud announced that office automation should be a significant focus of the MsgGroup mailing list. He wrote(32): As the "Coodinator in Chief" of MsgGroup, I would like to take this opportunity to ask whether we should shift our focus to office automation in general, as a natural expansion from the message systems orientation that we have had for the last five years? (Yes! Count them, five whole years!) It is my opinion that the ARPANET provides the best available prototypical office automation environment, one that contains all the required facilities, elements, functions, and features somewhere or other around the net. I use a wide variety of systems on different hosts to get my work done. I truly use the network as my electronic office, which is somewhat remarkable because I am working as a management consultant, rather than as a computer or network technician. Unless we hear some serious dissent, we should consider this change of focus to be a fait accompli. Cheers - Stef His proposal was greeted with support(33): I agree wholeheartedly with Stef that we should accept our destiny and let all office automation be within the Msggroup purview. I, too, conduct large amounts of my work via various network facilities, and often describe the "office of the future" to groups as already existing within the net framework. So by all means let's continue discussions such as the recent one on the Prime OA stuff. [Howard] But it was also greeted with an opposing view from Gaines at Rand (34). He wrote: I think the term "office automation" is at once too broad and too narrow for the charter of MsgGroup. The MsgGroup ought to broadly focus on issues relevant to computer generation, manipulation, and transmission of messages.... But, there are nevertheless aspects of office automation that are pretty distant from issues related to messages. Taste and judgment rather than any sort of strict rules should be the determinant of whether something is appropriate for the MsgGroup, and we ought to take kindly to rather far removed discussions if somebody considers that they are worth presenting to the MsgGroup. However, I think we ought to still say that our focus is on issues related to computers and messages. The field of office automation is too narrow. Messages are used in other context than what people normally associate with the office environment.... Men communicate for a large variety of reasons in a wide variety of circumstances and we should not narrowly constrain ourselves to any one subset of that universe of communications. "So here's a vote against a change of focus and a vote for a very wide latitude in interpreting what falls within the purview of MsgGroup," concluded Gaines. Stefferud responded that his view of office automation was not a narrow one, but a broad one encompassing the broad scope that was being proposed by others. He wrote(35): Thanks...for your careful comments. I concur with your assessment and suggestion. I see the new focus as being wider as you propose it, but your clarification is very helpful. From my ARPANET experience, I find that office automation should mean the application of computer networking and computer mail facilities to all kinds of work in all possible locations. Office Automation does not belong exclusively to the Word Processing Industry any more than to the TWX Switching Industry or the ADP Systems Industry. It belongs to the integration of all these, which to this date has only been demonstrated in these hallowed ARPANET halls. And, to me, COMPUTER NETWORK MAIL is THE KEY ADDED INGREDIENT. So to further set our new context - Onward! Stef While new and exploratory uses of the Net were tried out on MsgGroup, there was also discussion of the kinds of uses that had to be prevented. In a post by Leonard Foner(36) explains that as a "tourist" on the ARPANET he was able to get an account at MIT but had to sign and return an application form which detailed "good uses of MIT's computer resources, as well as caveats about things that a tourist should not do. It is fairly simple at least to warn them about abusing the network," he wrote, especially against using it for commercial purposes, which were forbidden. He recommended, "That all users of the net...should be informed as to its intended uses, and what is strictly forbidden (such as profit-making from the Net)....Discussion of funded research on the net seems fine," he continued, noting that that was what the ARPANET was created to support." In 1977, a message from IPTO's Steve Walker indicated that he would no longer be following MsgGroup in his old status, but that he had found the work done by those participating in MsgGroup very valuable. He wrote(37): It has been a long time since I have sent a message to this group but I have certainly enjoyed the dialog which has taken place here for the past two and a half years. In remembering all the things that have happened during that time, it is with a good bit of reluctance that I announce my departure from ARPA in late January for a position with the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. In my new position I hope to be able to influence the acceptance by the Defense Dept of secure computer systems, interactive message systems and general networking capabilities. I plan to remain active on the ARPAnet and to maintain close contact with groups such as yours. I am personally proud to have been associated with the collection of people on the ARPA network who got this whole message handling, electronic mail thing started. Keep up your excellent work. "Have a good holiday season," his message ended. The Need for Interneting By 1979, Crocker noted that he and others were working on a project to create a new distributed mail program MMDF, Multi-channel Memo Distribution Facility(38), "to allow mail transmission between machines which have access to a variety of communication lines." In particular, he wrote, "We want to allow interneting and to eliminate the need for being attached to the ArpaNet." A report by the DCA (Defence Communications Agency) in July 1980 documented how the ARPANET had grown to over 66 nodes and included 4000-5000 users(39). The report explained how even though the ARPANET was successful, there were problems. "The basic hardware and software are becoming obsolete," it noted. It described how the nodes used minicomputers developed in the 1960s which no longer had sufficient memory and other capabilities to support technical components to the network. The ultimate goal, "of our planning," the report explained, "is to provide for an ARPANET II which will be a virtual network and will make use of several different networks." The report described how in the next 3 years the ARPANET Host Protocols Network Control Program (NCP)would be replaced with a new DOD Standard Protocol Set. The new protocols were DOD Standard Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the Internet Protocol (IP). Also, new computers would replace the IMPs and TIPs that formed the IMP subnetwork administered by BBN. All Honeywell equipment was to be replaced with the BBN C/30 costing $20,000 - $35,000 (depending on the configuration) if funding could be obtained, and the software would run in a virtual mode. Unix and the Transition to TCP/IP Other messages noted that there were many sites that wanted network connections, but that the ARPANET couldn't accommodate them. It was during this 1979-80 period that Usenet was being introduced at Duke and the University of North Carolina to provide an online network for those in the Unix community.(40) In a post on July 4, 1981, Mike Muuss at the Ballistic Research Laboratory noted that it was possible to run Unix on many of the computers being used by those who wanted network connectivity. He wrote(41): "Unix runs on everything these days" This would help facilitate the transition from the IMP with NCP subnetwork to TCP/IP protocols that was being planned for January. 1 1983. "There exists AT LEAST one choice of software for UNIX systems," writes Muuse in a post on the fa.digest-p on January 14, 1982,(42) "(all machines), T(w)enexes, Multics, and IBMs, so the majority of the "ordinary" systems will at least be able to talk, even if non conveniently." However, he noted that there was not a TCP/IP implementation for the ITS machines at MIT that archived and carried many of the ARPANET Mailing lists. By May 3, 1982, a post by Steve Hartwell noted, "Let's not forget, there are more unix sites than arpanet sites." And Usenet was helping to meet the goal of providing "interoperabilty among our differently hosted mesage systems." (43). Also, the problem of large mailing lists had become clear on the ARPANET. Lists that had several hundred participants like Msggroup and others were a heavy load on the host machines that were used to send them out. Horton noted the superiority of Usenet to ARPANET for mailing lists as it made it possible to send one copy to each site, rather than having to send out a copy to each person subscribing(44), "Note that one of the big points of USENET is that only one copy of each digest or article is sent to each site...." Those sites using Unix as their operating system could connect to Usenet and thus have access to some of the ARPANET mailing lists. Mark Horton, posting on MsgGroup in 1983 wrote(45): I'll repeat my invitation to any sites, ARPANET or otherwise, who want to join Usenet - drop me a line and I'll point you at a nearby contact. If you run UNIX, the code is all written; if you run something else, you'll have some work to do.... Also, by this period several of those who had participated in MsgGroup and the ARPANET were participants on the discussion on Usenet. And the MsgGroup themes of supporting and exploring the development of communication using an online network were continued via Usenet and the ARPANET mailing lists which were ported to Usenet by Horton at the University of California at Berkeley. Part IV The Early Days of Usenet Usenet was created in 1979 by graduate students at the Duke University and the University of North Carolina who were trying to create a network to connect those who had access to the Unix operating system.(46) By the summer of 1980, Mark Horton, at the University of California at Berkeley had joined Usenet. Berkeley was also a site on the ARPANET and Horton soon began to port the discussion from several ARPANET mailing lists onto Usenet. At first those on Usenet could only read the discussion on the ARPANET mailing lists, but by Fall 1980, contributions from Usenet participants began to be a part of the ARPANET lists carried on Usenet. Among the earliest ARPANET mailing lists carried on Usenet were Sf-lovers and Human Nets. By Spring of 1981, however, a new mailing list was started to deal with office automation. That mailing list was made available on Usenet as FA.apollo. It was named after one of the workstations. In an early post to the mailing list, Roger Duffy wrote(47): Hello, Welcome to the APOLLO mailing list. APOLLO discusses personal work station computers, such as the APOLLO work station computer, the Three Rivers Corporation PERC, or the recently announced Xerox STAR. APOLLO provides a way for interested members of the ARPAnet community to discuss what is wrong with these machines, compare notes on work in progress, and share useful insights about these kinds of systems. The list is managed by Hank Dreifus . He explained that "APOLLO is currently discussing initial reactions to the Xerox Star Workstation." And he ended his message, "Lastly, welcome to APOLLO. I trust you will enjoy being part of these discussions." A flurry of discussion followed, and it soon began to center on the pros and cons of having a programming language available with the Xerox Star Workstation. Summarizing responses from those on the mailing list and participating on the Usenet newsgroup, Hank Dreifus at the Wharton School in PA noted several generalizations he felt applied to the subject area(48). o Everyone's view of Personal Workstations is different. o The machine(s) selected are wide ranged and apparently well suited for each application chosen. o There is no wrong Personal Workstation machine. o The technology of Personal Workstations is not well established as of yet. o There is a demonstrated need for this technology, it appears to be one year away from general use. The summary listed the common characteristics of workstations and described the parts not yet available. "The intention is to educate ourselves about personal workstations," explained the post, "They sound neat, but what they are under the surface is still a hot topic." Particular discussion in the list focused on the Xerox machines -- the Xerox Star, their high end machine and the 820, a less expensive product. Questions were raised as to whether the 820 could be networked to the Star. Others asked what software would be available with the Star (49) and particularly if there would be a programming system available. One response noted that the Star would come with a low power programming language, but that a more powerful programming environment called the Mesa development system had been developed at Xerox would not be made available(50). Apparently, the poster noted, "the reasoning behind this involves consistency in system software." The post explained that Xerox felt it would keep users from doing harm to the system by restricting access to the Mesa programming environment. Those who wanted new applications would have to ask Xerox to create them. Another post explained that if Xerox wanted to succeed in selling the Star (51) "it is essential that they provide a decent programming language with it. Otherwise," the post continued, "it will be just a word processor or maybe a little more." He went on to explain that those using the Star would need specific specialized applications and only if there was a programming language would it be possible to have those written. A subsequent post noted that though the initial purchase of the Star was expensive, that would end up being a minimal cost compared to the cost of renting software. He wrote (52): You people seem to be concentrating on the hardware costs of STAR, which, from my reading of the information available is just the start-up. I think this is like worrying about Gillette's pricing of the razor-blade holder. Most people will be renting software (...blades) forever. This could get very expensive. Soon the moderator of the Apollo mailing list announced that the name of this office automation system mailing list would changed and on Usenet would become FA.works for personal workstations, as it wasn't appropriate to name the list after one particular product(53). The economics of buying a workstation was the subject of discussion. One post noted (54) that because workstations like the Star appeared expensive ($10,000 per person) they would probably be attractive to managers rather than office peons. Another poster (55) responded pointing out that for an engineer earning $30,000 a year, his or her time might cost the company $60,000, when the cost of the technology being used was added to the salary paid. If having such a personal workstation like the Star made work more productive, it would save the company money and thus be worth the investment. He wrote (56) "so if I do my work 10% faster, the company in some way, "saves" 6,000 (the savings could be in hiring less engineers or by getting more work done per unit time or by getting the job done more effectively." Another post cautioned that there was an interest cost to borrowing for capital investment (57). "At today's rates, $10K capital investment costs the economy 20% interest, either directly because they had to borrow it, or indirectly because they don't have it to invest elsewhere. So your increase in productivity," he noted, "would have to be at least 20% to break even. He went on to discuss the difficulty of proving such "increases in productivity." One of the participants on the FA.apollo newsgroup, and on the successor newsgroup that followed it, FA.works, was Randy Ivanciw. He had also posted on the MsgGroup list. He became a regular contributor to the FA.Apollo and FA.works.(58) In his introduction, he wrote: I am Randy Ivanciw, a computer specialist with the US Army Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM). My major duties include long range and short range planning for office automation. I work at DARCOM headquarters (I am a civilian) as a member of a 7 person staff dealing with the use, planning, implementation and other nasties of office automation. He explains how the installation at DARCOM benefitted from the discussion on the list, which helped to make possible a broad view of what they were trying to do. He wrote: In reading the debates pro and con on big systems and little systems, where big systems are large mainframes and little systems are personal workstations....Let me illustrate how we have attempted to incorporate both worlds in our OA plans. Describing the system he helped create, he writes: DARCOM has a DEC 10 (DARCOM-KA) on the ARPANET which it uses to provide electronic mail and other OA services to a broad community of users throughout the command (the command is all over this country). Access is via ARPANET. Advantages here are that for a relatively inexpensive yearly charge a remotely located single user can obtain OA service with a communications capability as powerful as the ARPANET. This service is in such demand that we cannot supply services in large enough quantities (thus the DEC 10 will soon be replaced with a couple of 11/780s to provide more services). Outlining a 3 level office automation system, he explains how it is used to encourage participation. For example, let me paint a typical scenario of one of DARCOM's subordinate commands or activities just entering into the world of office automation: The Commander or somebody at the command wants to try office automation. Now they are unsure of its benefits so they don't want to spend mucho money. The buy a mailbox on our DARCOM-KA (LARGE MAINFRAME). With this mailbox they can experiment with all the OA tools. After a short while they want 5 or 10 other people at their command or activity to get mailboxes so that they can communicate via electronic mail. They buy more mailboxes on the large mainframe. Then it is determined that office automation is good for the command. They make large scale plans to provide OA services to 100, or 200, or 300, or how-ever-many prople. At this point the economies of scale move towards the LARGE CLUSTER machine. With a large cluster installed locally, the command is essentially running their own OA. But soon they find that more and more users are demanding service. Enter the small cluster. As one division goes from one or two users (who were getting OA services on the large cluster) to a demand to provide services to 8 or 10 people in that particular division, a micro computer is installed in the division to provide those services (and offset the demand on the large cluster).(59) His post indicates a process within ARPA encouraging office automation. The discussion on FA.apollo and then FA.works mailing proved helpful to those like Ivanciw who were charged with such a task, but who didn't find their questions were answered by the vendors. For example, Ivanciw, describes the difficulty he encountered during a sales event trying to get information about how successfully the Xerox 820 and Star Workstations could be connected to the Ethernet. He writes (60), "So what it breaks down to is this: there are not too many folks at Xerox that know how these things connect to the ethernet. The literature is written so that one can assume a lot." A response to his post described how the two different Xerox workstations had been developed and how there was ethernet capabilility really functioning on only one of them. Paul Karger, who had worked at Xerox, wrote (61): The key to getting through the Xerox propaganda is to realize that there is NOT one, but TWO office automation product lines which have been forcefully "merged." These lines were developed by two competing groups and don't really have much in common.... The two product lines evolved and were designed separately.... I hear that the Xerox sales force is claiming that they have an integrated product line for office automation. Low cost 820's up to the Star. Ah . . . I don't think I can agree with that. I believe they are undermining their credibility when they try to convince people of this. Karger's post included a diagram with two columns describing the origins of the two sets of products designs(62). In a postscript to his message, he wrote: P.S. Randy -- to answer your specific message, the products in column one all have the Ethernet designed and built in from the start. The products in column two have had the Ethernet added with chewing gum and bailing wire (if at all). Part V Questioning What Should Be Discussed Not surprisingly there were managers at Xerox who were not happy about the kind of frank discussion ongoing on the ARPANET mailing lists. A post by David Liddle, Vice President of the Office Products Division at Xerox explained his reluctance to have Xerox products discussed by Xerox employees on the ARPANET (63): Many of you in Xerox are aware of a newly created Arpanet distribution list named Apollo. It was established to promote discussion of personal workstation computers. As you might expect, much of the recent discussion has involved the Xerox 8010 Star information system. Because many of the messages ask for information about this product and its associated development software, you may feel tempted to reply to some of them. It is ARPA policy that the Arpanet be used only for government supported research and development. It is against Xerox policy to use the Arpanet to discuss products.... Xerox employees use the Arpanet for ARPA related research purposes only, not for answering questions or distributing information about our products. Questions from potential customers about the Xerox 8010 and other OPD products should be referred to Arnold Palmer, Field Sales Manager, Xerox Corporation, 1341 West Mockingbird Lane, Dallas, Texas 75247, phone (214) 689-6689. David E. Liddle Vice President Office Products Division A response to Liddle's post challenged the reasons he had given for limiting discussion. Lars Ericson at CMU wrote(64): The use of the ARPANET for informal discussion of computer science -- related issues is a primary win. It is clear that such discussion is beneficial to ongoing government research projects -- DARCOM and Office Automation for example, are well represented on the Work Station. Ericson continued: Mr Liddle also seems to forget that the reason PARC efforts are so immensely saleable these days is precisely BECAUSE of their participation and open-ness (as opposed to IBM, say) in the ARPA/university research community, and not in spite of it. "Mr. Liddle's Xerox policy announcement," Ericson wrote, "represents the sort of irrelevant (to ARPANET interests) administrative miserlyness that we may come to expect from Xerox now that the 13-piece suits have brought PARC to market." Also responding Little's post, Joe Newcomer emphasized ARPA's policy forbidding commercial use of the ARPANET(65). Joining the controversy, Crocker explained (66): It is my understanding that the purpose of this discussion is to consider the technical aspects of personal work-stations. Arpa and the rest of the military are investing quite a bit of money in this area, so that this discussion would seem to be extremely appropriate to the Arpanet mission. He added: I do not believe that conformance with the Arpanet proscriptions necessarily requires commercial participants to be prohibited from voicing opinions about the technology in general or from answering specific questions about their product. Touting their product is another matter. Crocker's proposal was that, "I suggest that each company assign one technical (not marketing) person to respond to queries. This will permit direct information, while making "tone-control" easier." Part VI Limited Distribution? Not only was there reluctance on the part of representatives of some commercial entities to have open conversation of all issues on ARPANET mailing lists ported to Usenet, but also there was a sense among ARPANET participants that their contributions should be considered privileged private publications and their distribution strictly limited. A conversation describing this issue developed on FA.digest-p carried on the ARPANET and on Usenet. In January 1982 a post noted that Computer World magazine had gotten copies of the TCP digest from someone and published verbatim quotes from the digest(67). Though the source of the leak acknowledged what had been done and agreed to stop, "it gave everybody a real scare," the post noted. "My temporary solution to this issue," the poster proposed, "is to add the following notice to the Masthead: "TCP/IP Digest Thursday, 8 Oct 1981 Volume 1 : Issue 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- LIMITED DISTRIBUTION For Research Use Only --- Not for Public Distribution --------------------------------------------------------------------- At least this ensures that anybody who gets fed a copy knows that it is not supposed to be shouted to the treetops. Comments?" Christopher C Stacy at MIT disagreed with such a publication identifier. He wrote (68): I think that the explicit banner on the masthead of the Digest is a bad idea, because this will cause many people to think that if such a banner is NOT present (ie., on any other Digests or on future TCP Digests) that it is alright to redistribute the material. In another post, Stacy described his understanding of why ARPANET mailing lists had to have limited distribution. (69) He pointed to an incident that had occurred when MIT had to fight for its continued existence on the ARPANET after an article in the journal Datamation about the WINE-TASTERS mailing list appeared. He also cautioned of the possible liability problems when evaluating and discussing various commercial products, as with the INFO-TERMS mailing list which evaluated terminals. "But laying down the law," he wrote, "is a fairly useless way of solving this sort of problem. The problem is one of awareness, cooperation and trust. Only if people understand and care, will they take steps to protect a fragile institution like the ARPANET," he wrote. Another post noted that the mailing list digests "do not exist as authorized publications." (70) He felt that they should be considered "internal communications between research project members authorized to use the net." A post asking about the implications of the Daniel Ellsberg case to this issue by Mike Muuse was answered by Paul Karger. Karger wrote (71): While putting a restricted distribution statement on a digest may be a psychological limitation on distribution, there are a couple of problems. First, since ARPA and DCA are part of the DoD, there are specific regulations on what may or may not be marked as FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. The regulations are in part designed to not let people invent other kinds of markings. This dates back to the Ellsberg case and the desire to limit the ability of government people to conceal information from the "public" (whoever that is). Though Karger said his familiarity with the regulations was a little stale, "I would be very careful about developing new ways to restrict distribution of government information," he cautioned. Through this discussion, concerns for limiting the ARPANET discussions were raised, and answered with the limitations that the current state of relevant law allowed US government officials to impose on the ARPANET mailing list discussions. Thus the way was cleared for broader distribution of the posts on ARPANET mailing lists, making the transition from the limited circulation available on the ARPANET to the broader participation Usenet made possible. Part VII Usenet Welcomes All While access to the ARPANET was limited, Usenet welcomed all who were willing to connect in a public way (72). "Usenet is a public network," wrote Mark Horton, "and those on it should announce themselves." "It seems to be a common thing," he wrote, "for a new site to come upon USENET without telling anyone they exist." What happens," he explained, "is that someone hears about USENET from someone already on the net, who sends them their copy of whatever code they are running." He asked, "When you start getting network news, you should announce your existence to the net by filling out the enclosed form and posting it to the newsgroup net.general.... This form will be used as your entry in the USENET directory. Note," he continued, that is the policy of USENET that all sites receiving public newsgroups (such as net.all and fa.all) are public in the sense that the fact they are on USENET is public. The name and phone number of a contact person, as well as the name and location of the site, is important. If you are doing some kind of secret work there is certainly no need to divulge the nature of your work. If you feel that you must keep your existence a secret, you should not be joining USENET," Horton clarified. A form was provided for a new site to fill in. Horton asked that those joining Usenet post their announcement and basic configuration information in NET.general. NET.general was the one newsgroup that all were on Usenet during this period were encouraged to read (73). "net general," wrote Horton, "is for stuff that everybody is supposed to at least consider reading. "It's useful for INITIAL QUERIES and ANNOUNCEMENTS." However, he noted that "It is NOT there for discussions." He explained, "If you see something in net.general you want to comment on, you should almost always just REPLY to the author, not follow up to the world. If a continuing discussion is needed, start a new newsgroup." He also suggested replying to initial queries from NET.general in NET.misc. "NET.misc," he wrote, "is a good way to keep net.general free of trivia without starting new newsgroups for short lived topics." He urged those on Usenet to realize that not all might be interested in a particular topic but "feel obligated to read things in net.general because of their possible importance." Matt Glickman, who helped Mark Horton write the code for B News, supported Horton's request for maintaining NET.general as a newsgroup that would concern all. He wrote (74): Just reminding everybody (It feel it is my duty...) that net.general is no run-of-the-mill newsgorup. No sir. It's not net.misc and it's not net.news. net.general should only contain GENERAL interest information of interest to the ENTIRE network. Especially, no dreaded newsgroup discussions whatsoever! Please behave yourselves. Therefore, while the posts on NET.general don't document the interesting discussion carried on on early Usenet, they do convey some of the general concerns and views of the pioneering Usenet participants. Many of those on early Usenet were programmers or system administrators. As such, they are particularly sensitive to misspellings and other textual and writing errors. In a post on NET.general, one user gathered comments from all interested about concerns about what they considered poor writing that appeared on Usenet. In response, Rob Glaser from Yale wrote (75): It is true that many technical people use the English language sloppily. In an informal setting such as USENET, however, content ought to be valued over form, timelines over lengthy deliberation. I'd rather see a timely article with a few grammatical mistakes (as long as it is basically coherent) than the same piece, impeccably written but appearing days later." He also observed that the software (inews) for posting sometimes was problemmatic and helped create the grammatical or other errors one saw online. He wrote: Another factor to keep in mind is that, judging from some of the submissions we receive over the net, the inews submission interface is not always conducive to perfection (not a slap at the news designers, just the imcompetents, myself included, who make dumb mistakes.) He then went on to describe how he had had to redo even this post twice before getting it right. "For instance," he wrote, "I messed up two earlier versions of this flame (one of which may have been sent, my apologies if it was) before (*pray*) finally getting things right." Other posts on NET.general included requests for recommendations for buying something worthwhile or complaints about problems users were having with commercial entities to see if others had similar problems or could help. For example, a post by Larry Piovano (76) described how he was planning to buy a color tv with a 13" screen. He asked for recommendations and experiences of others to help him decide which brand to get. "I wish to buy one," he wrote, "that will not die in short order." Bill Shannon from Digitial Equipment answered (77), "My 12 inch Sony has been going strong for 10 years with no repairs, no adjustments, no problems! And I'm sure they've gotten better (and more expensive)." A response on Usenet responded (78): Suggest SONY. I have two trinitrons and they work wonderfully...." The post continued: I have had my SONY for a couple of years now and have had no problem. I suggest you get one with an electronic tuner (no moving parts to wear out). Try the wireless remote control. Its a great toy if your lazy." A similar question about recommendations regarding the Hayes Smart modem was posed by John L. McAlpine in Canada at the Saskatchewan Linear Accelerator. He wrote (79): Use of HAYES Smart Modem 1) I would appreciate receiving comments on the reliability of above modem. 2) If anyone has available the appropriate patches to use this modem with uucp for auto-dialling I would appreciate receiving same. A post by Ron Gordon at Bell Labs (Murray Hill) warned other Volkswagon Rabbit owners of a potential radiator tank leak. He wrote (80): Attention VW Rabbit owners, you may have a problem! The radiator overlow tank on my vehicle developed several cracks which permitted coolant to escape. Because the overflow tank is directly connected to the radiator system without a valve, a leak in the overflow tank is just as bad as a leak in the radiator! He went on to ask if other VW Rabbit owners were having a similar problem. "My tank failed after 16 months at 15,000 miles," he wrote, "Should enough evidence become available, a formal complaint may be filed with VW and the Consumer Protection Agency." Another Usenet poster asked if there could be a consumer forum newsgroup to monitor companies that ripoff consumers. In his post, Randy King wrote (81): What provisions, if any, have been made to provide a sharing of gripes about national "ripoff" companies and the like? I would like to hear some comment on this, as well as see the establishment of a newsgroup (as if any more were needed). It might be very interesting to see what goes [on-ed] out there and to provide readers with some insight to companies so that they may not be smitten by these "invisible stalkers! "What's the feeling out there," his post asked. Responding to an answer by Andy Tanenbaum from Bell Labs about the intent of his post, King wrote that he had had in mind an insurance company, but that the forum could discuss both problemmatic and beneficial companies. (82) Several of the posts on NET.general suggested creating new newsgroups, such as a post by Linda Seltzer at Bell Labs (83): I would like to start a newsgroup called net.music `for communication among composers, news of concerts and conferences, news about computer music, news of good new records, etc. Anyone interested in subscribing to this group please send mail to research.lin or alice.seltzer - Linda Seltzer Another post noted that her email was inaccurate in her post, and that it should be alice!seltzer (84). Other posts concerned general questions or problems. For example, Andy Tannenbaum posted about a piece of junk mail he had received from a head hunter who seemed to have gotten his name from the list of conference attendees who attended the previous USENIX winter conference (85). "I DON'T want junk mail from employment agencies," he wrote. "If you want to put up a recruiting note at a USENIX, fine. But as long as I have a means here to express my dissatisfaction, I want it to be known that I look with bad feelings toward companies that badger me by abusing a valuable resource." His post ended, "I wouldn't want a future list of conferees to not have addresses just because some losers bother some of the good folks on the list with junk mail. Don't call us, we'll call you." A post by Jay Lepreau asked if there were any archive of bugs for software that had been posted on Usenet so he wouldn't have to do work others had already done. He wrote (86): Has anyone out there been archiving any of the "net.*bugs" newsgroups or just have old stuff still kicking around? We just joined Usenet around the beginning of November; if anyone has stuff from before that I'd appreciate hearing from you. I'm TIRED of fixing bugs i know have been found & fixed before. I can send you a shell script to pull stuff out of your .nindex if you've got A news; I don't know how B news works. A post from Scott Baden announced (87) that he was in the process of creating an annotated bibliography on two topics: "Functional Programming languages" and about "Applicative architectures." He asked those with any references or comments to email them to him, promising, "I'll make a copy of the bibliography available to all interested parties. If you have already started a bibliography I'd be interested in collaborating with you." News items were posted as was one on the AT&T settlement with the U.S. government posted on January 8, 1982 by Steve Bellovin. The post explained (88): AT&T and the U.S. government have settled their seven-year- old anti-trust suit out of court. Under the terms of the settlement, AT&T will divest itself of the local operating companies; it will retain AT&T Long Lines (the long distance service), Western Electric, and Bell Labs. The reorganization will be completed within 18 months. Questions about Usenet were posted, as in a post by Randy King asking how long it took a post to get to the majority on Usenet. He wrote (89): This may have been answered long before my emergence onto NETNEWS, but I will ask it anyway! Does anybody have a feel for how long it takes a posted article to reach the majority of the NETNEWS community? I realize that there are N! variables here, but a general ordinary run-of-the mill answer would suffice. Two Days? Three Days? A month? Fifteen minutes? (HA). How 'bout it. A response from Horton described the process of distribution of Netnews during this period. He wrote (90): It depends on the newsgroup and where you are. If you are somewhere inside Bell Labs or on a key machine with a dialer (decvax, duke) it will probably get out to 70 - 80% of the net within a few hours. If not, you probably have to wait for an overnight poll, but it will get most places ( >90% ) overnight. There are some far reaches that won't get it for 2-3 days (more if something is down) and it may take another 2-3 days for a reply or followup to get back to you. Horton went on to describe how distribution of the Mailing Lists carried on Usenet occurred. He wrote: The fa newsgroups are different. They are fed in at Berkeley which then waits for ihnss [at Bell Labs-ed] and decvax [at Digital Equipment Corp-ed] to poll. ihnss only polls once a day (in the early morning). decvax calls often. So Bell Labs (which gets most stuff from ihnss) tends to have fa stuff each morning from the previous day. Those getting news from duke or decvax get it randomly, faster depending on when decvax happens to call ucbvax (at Berkeley-ed) usually several time a day. Horton also described other delays affecting how users got news from Usenet. He wrote: And of course there are the delays from the time the news shows up on a system to when any given person actually reads it - often once a day, but some people log in on neighboring machines to get news and don't get it that often. I have gotten replies to queries as much as 3 weeks later, not counting the famous unix-wizards drought where it took 2 months to reach the masses before it even got into USENET! In summary, he wrote, "But a rough rule of thumb is that by overnight, most of the net will have at least had the chance to read your article." Along with the advantages of being on Netnews were the problems that users were confronted with. One such problem concerned discussion over what was appropriate discussion or in bad taste. Others claimed it was censorship to bar certain discussions. Describing this problem, Horton wrote: Also, PLEASE restrict your "questionable taste" stuff to net.jokes.q for the time being until this whole thing is settled. I am seeing stuff in net.general about dead babies that certainly offends me (and no, I'm neither dead nor a baby) and probably half the rest of the net. I'm still seeing poor taste jokes in net.jokes. There are people out there that are trying not to get this stuff, and they are being barraged with it anyway! This includes limericks - most of them belong in net.jokes.q. If you would be unwilling to get on your local TV station and recite what you're posting (with your mother and your boss in the audience) you shouldn't be broadcasting it to an equally wide audience of random people. Remember, also, that a record is kept on every machine of everything you say. He also asked for input from those who found such posts offensive toward trying to determine an appropriate policy with regard to such posts. He wrote (91): I haven't been hearing from many people who actually ARE OFFENDED by the net.jokes.q stuff. I'd like to get input from them (either privately by electronic mail or publicly in net.news) in regards to the policy that needs to be formed. How you feel about various proposed solutions is important. Anyone who further understands the Affirmative Action issues should speak up -- I don't claim to understand them very well. Another concern involved what were appropriate posts on Usenet. J.C. Winterton asked that users not post articles from the wire services but instead that people subscribe to newspapers for such information rather than trying to send it around on Usenet. He wrote (92): Notwithstanding the fact that some persons do work for Bell, it STILL costs a bundle to send this stuff around the continent on this network when it is being shipped by the wire services anyway. Why not just subscribe to a large daily newspaper or two. If you really are interested in the entertainment world you can subscribe to Variety. The New York Times and the Times of London probably carry everything else. And where these are unavailable, there are other major papers. I don't believe that usenet should become an arm of AP, Reuters, etc. I am reasonably sure that they would be somewhat upset with the infringing of their copyright as well. That a thing can be done is not a reason to do it! Besides, by distributing wire service stuff this way (with or without authorization) is probably helping to unemploy some poor newspaper carrier, etc. etc." Commenting on the proliferation of new newsgroups and newsgroup names, Horton promised to issue a list of the newsgroups "officially blessed" to help resolve the problems of multiple names for similar groups. But he also encouraged those with various views on the issue to speak up. He wrote (93): I am coming to realized that people are waiting for me to say something. We are discussing what to do about the proliferation of newsgroups - if you want to be involved in this discussion please send me mail. (We might even, ahem, start a newsgroup.) I hope to have a list of active newsgroups, "officially blessed" (whatever that means), in a few days. Chain letters also posed a problem on early Usenet. Henry Spencer from the University of Toronto posted asking users to recognize the problem and keep it from harming the Net. He wrote (94): Some turkeys evidently have decided it's funny, funny, funny to start sending chain letters around Usenet. With all the mail headers on them, these messages are many Kbytes. For some strange reason, when we're paying phone bills for 300- baud long distance calls, this does not seem amusing. This is EXACTLY the sort of thing that could lead to humorless administrators closing down people's network connections on the grounds that the money is being wasted. For heaven's sake people, STOP IT!!! Your thoughtless empty-headed practical joke is endangering the network that many people worked long and hard to set up! Noting the kinds of problems those on Usenet had to deal with, Horton observed the obligation to those on Usenet to consider its best interest. He urged that those with different views of the issues involved be active and participate in the discussions over what to do (95). "I propose that anyone with opinions on this issue discuss it on net.news. I want to hear from both sides. This is YOUR NETWORK, remember! Others on Usenet had hoped that it would make it possible to form a new form of media or to influence the political process in a way not formerly available. "Not to belittle any new newsgroup," George Otto wrote (96), "but it strikes me that we are developing a real electronic newspaper here." In a similar way, rdg at allegra wrote (97), "Wouldn't it be great to use this electronic medium to send notes to our government officials. i never seem to write postal letters or telegrams, but we all seem to find these electric notes enough to use often. Can you image net.reagan with a few authentic replies." Scott Braden added (98), "Or what if we could lobby our favorite senator? (net.lobby, net.senator?" The dilemma of funding Usenet posed a problem to some sites as described in the post by Chris Kent at the University of Cincinnati. He wrote (99): We at the University of Cincinnati are on a budget crunch. Therefore, I have been told to cut down on outgoing calls or lose the ability to place them. I ask you all to cooperate, please; try to avoid routing program sources through us whenever possible. We will continue to transship news, so that won't be a problem, but will probably poll only every other day....I am sorry it has to come to this -- but some people higher up seem to see this as just wasted money. I will keep you all posted as to our situation. Chris Kent (cincy!chris) Others like Mel Haas at Bell Labs (houxm) reported that the funding of various sites could be jeopardized by an irresponsible activity on the net and that all users should be aware of the problems that might be caused. He wrote (100): This is a plea to clean up the net. Please ! There are whole sections of the net that are being watched by the payers of the bills, and what shows now is not good. The flame and flash content of the past few weeks has far outweighed the useful. Don't revive the "db" stuff in net.cooks! Don't send everything to net.general! and, certainly, don't send anything to both net.general and another! Put net.news stuff in net.news, net.records stuff in net.records, etc. Show some consideration for others in the wording and content of your submittals. He pointed out that responsible use would help establish how the Net was a money saver for the sites paticipating and thus support continued use. He wrote: Try to make the net a useful exchange of useful nformation and ideas, that will pay for the service and help people. In other words, make the net a useful tool, not a place to expose yourself, our ego and your bad manners. Thank you. Mel Haas, houxm!mel Explaining his need for access to Usenet even though he was would no longer have Net access through the University of California Berkeley, Michael Shilol wrote (101): I recently graduated from Berkeley where I enjoyed this network very much, both for entertainment and for receiving the latest news on many subjects. I am now starting a job and will soon be loosing my account on the Berkeley Vax. My question is: Is it possible for me to get access to this network in any way? Can my company get access to it? Is there a way to pay for this privilege? He noted that the useful technical information available on Usenet was so valuable that a company could benefit financially from being connected, "This network has been so useful to me for finding information that I think it is worth money and/or equipment to get it." And he concluded his post: "Any answers, comments, suggestions appreciated." He then had a form of signature giving both UUCP and ARPANET address forms. Michael Shiloh CSVAX.shiloh@berkekey UCBVAX!shiloh In another post, George Otto at Indian Hill Bell Labs noted the technical superiority of Usenet newsgroups to mailing lists. He described the problem of keeping mailing lists on different computers in sync. He wrote (102): Is anyone working on making mailing lists just as efficient as newsgroups? One problem with using mailing lists for maintaining communications among those in a small group of people is the difficulty of keeping the lists on many machines in sync. I tried looking into setting up a program under my ID that would allow others to mail to me for automatic redistribution to a list I maintained, but never found a good way to do it. He noted that Usenet solved the problem in a superior way by making it possible for people connected to different computers to participate in a common newsgroup. He wrote: The beauty of using USENET it that members of affected groups can be on different machines and need do one or two simple things to be attached to the common group. Conclusion These posts on NET.general show how those using different computers at a wide variety of different academic and research sites, many of which were not officially sponsored by any funding agency, were able to participate in the kind of collaborative communication and some of the mailing lists formerly only available to those with access to the ARPANET. More importantly, Usenet made the process of posing a problem and collaborating with others to try to determine how to solve it more widely available. Such a process is needed to solve the difficult technical and social problems which computers and networking technology present for our times. Habermas writes that there is a need to understand such a scientific approach to technical issues and challenges. What he doesn't recognize is that the technology itself is needed to help in the process. The early ARPANET as demonstrated through posts on the MsgGroup mailing list and early Usenet provide beginning insight into how people using and directing technology can be part of the important scientific and regenerative process that contributing to the online community makes possible. --------- Footnotes available at http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~ronda/usenet.hist/msgnts.txt/ Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ and in print edition ISBN # 0-8186-7706-6 ----------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to Ronda once again for her hard work in compiling the history of 'the net'. She has been on this project for a long time now, and periodically she sends me her latest efforts to share with the readers of this group. Long-time readers know this already, but it should be noted for newer participants that TELECOM Digest is to the best of my knowledge the oldest continuously published mailing list on the net which is still in operation from the 'old days' of the early 1980's. This digest began in August, 1981 and will soon be sixteen years old. There are many mailing lists on the net which began in the 1980's and are still around, but I do not think any of them were around when this one was started by Jon Solomon that summer. This digest was originally part of the 'Human Nets' mailing list, and it came into existence when several participants in Human Nets wanted to have a more technical discussion on telephone networks and services. There are still about a dozen or so of the original charter subscribers to this digest on the mailing list, which has grown from a couple dozen names in the summer of 1981 to several thousand names today. Just as this digest started as an offshoot of Human Nets, other mailing lists have started as an offshoot of this one. The first was started by Dennis Rears for privacy discussions, as a result of a very long and controversial thread which got started here. Then later came the well-liked and highly regarded 'Computer Underground Digest'. It likewise had its origins here as a discussion on computer fraud and hackers. If memory serves, I think a well-known netter at the time had just been indicted and put on trial for 'hacking' ... the thread was long and controversial and very heated. I had to cut if off finally, and the editors of CuD took over the thread for their first couple of issues. A dispute over the management/editorial direction of this digest led to the formation of alt.dcom.telecom several years ago as an alternative to comp.dcom.telecom, and a second dispute in 1993 led to the formation of comp.dcom.telecom.tech as an alternate news group. This digest like others on the net operated freely and without charge for many years. From 1981 with enough submissions received to put out a sort of skimpy issue every three or four days to 1994 when the volume of mail first began routinely exceeding a hundred pieces per day, it continued to be a part-time 'hobby' for me. Now the mail runs about 200-300 items per day (NOT counting mail-daemons which number 100+ per day) with typically 25-30 requests for addition to the mailing list and/or deletion/change of address, etc. At one point I made an effort to use every single piece of mail in the digest but in the last year I seldom use more than 10-20 percent of what comes in. A good percentage of what comes in each day is spam; it is rare I do not receive a dozen or more of the Make Money Fast and related things each day. I suppose all moderators have seen much the same kind of growth in their mail as well as the huge amount of trash. Lacking any formal institutional ties which would provide me with a living wage, I had to make a decision three years ago to either cut back on the amount of time spent on the digest (it quite easily could consume six to eight hours per day of work) *or* find a source or two or three of funding. I chose the latter course, preferring to as much as possible maintain the quality here. That's why I count on the many letters I receive in snailmail from readers who have made it their business to assure me of getting the rent paid and food to eat each day. If you have not written to me recently at Post Office Box 4621, Skokie, IL 60076, please do so today. Your letters do mean a great deal, and I encourage you to stay in touch. Thanks again to Ronda for an excellent portrait of the net as it existed in the early 1980's. Her other work is on file in the Telecom Archives as well. PAT] e