>  Ben -- Stomping within your list may not accomplish much this time.  At
>  issue, as I understand it, is limiting free access to the NSF backbone to
>  researchers with demonstrated need for high-volume data transfer (e.g. global
>  climate modelers).  All others would have to start paying.  There was a
>  recent set of articles on this in either Science (or possibly in a New York
>  Times article in a tuesday Science section).  I can't find copies of these -
>  maybe some other readers can give you citations.  At any rate, it's being
>  discussed seriously and will in all likelihood happen. -- Phil Sollins
>  (OTS-L)
 
        I'm glad this issue has come up.  Several subscribers on my list
have written to me, urging me to post one of the "write to the White House
and protest" messages that have appeared on other lists.  I haven't done
so, having been advised that the issue was very complicated and not at a
stage right now where protest messages would do much good.  Is that advice
wrong, do you think?  SHOULD we be alerting subscribers to the threat and
urging them to make their voices heard?
 
        I don't want to fan the alarmist flames needlessly, but neither do
I want to put my head in the sand and think that will make the problem go
away.  I'd welcome informed advice.
 
        Joan Korenman, WMST-L Listowner   KORENMAN@UMBC
        Univ. of MD. Baltimore County     [log in to unmask]
        Baltimore, Maryland 21228-5398