To: elmatador who wrote (4382 ) 11/23/2001 10:03:20 AM From: Frank A. Coluccio Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 46821 Ossy, we are apparently focusing on different parts of the same family or animal, although we haven't come to terms on the actual species yet. Your concerns appear to zero in on the classic struggle between something-or-other and the (presumably-government) bureaucrats, while mine is on the preservation of the simplicity of the Internet. There. I couldn't have stated it any simpler than that. I'm not sure that in my case it is the bureaucrats as much as it is the lobbyists representing special interests in the media and content areas _in_addition_to_, the government, which also comes into play in areas of meddling where, ostensibly, safeguarding the security of its citizenry is the goal. And taxation is yet another dimension, entirely, although arguably someone might propose that taxation could be partially justified to support the billions that would be required to effect such a massive monitoring platform. The viability of putting into effect something that could actually work in the latter regard is a separate topic, imo, due to the scope of such an undertaking. Imagine, being able to not only monitor, but to audit and catalog, too, every transaction that takes place over the net. Some have actually proposed such a venture at the ITU level. I mean, storage platforms have advanced to amazing capabilities... but, let's get real. We're not necessarily at odds on this as much as we're viewing the matter in different intersecting dimensions. Although, you do seem pre-disposed to favoring centralized monitoring and control, borrowing from your background in cellular networks. This, despite your message to me on LMT concerning not all networks being dependent on SS7, but that's another issue, still. If my take on this is not accurate in your opinion, please advise. FAC