jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) (07/17/86)
This article is intended to address a few mistaken assumptions that have been posted recently. I am a member of the USENIX Board and of the Board committee which is working on the Stargate project, though my opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the board as a whole. >Lauren ... there is no reason in (*&^(*&^ that the basic outline of >a Comercial Stargate should remain behind closed doors at this point ... >you have been playing with the basic issues and estimates for nearly >more than a year, and approaching two. You should be able to summarize the >proposed organization, it's staffing, and budget within 50%. And you >darn well should be able to give some statement about the subscriber >base demographics and the assumptions behind it. This seems to be the most basic misunderstanding: that Lauren, the Board, or someone has a detailed business plan for Stargate and is hiding it from the public. Sorry, that's not so. Lauren is an excellent technical consultant and has done some amazing work both with the equipment and as a liaison with outside organizations that have to be involved. However, his main interests are not in the business end. One of the main reasons the USENIX Board has taken a direct interest in the project is in order to produce a business plan. But that did not happen a year ago, or two years ago: it happened one month ago. We do not yet know how much the service will cost to the subscriber, how much investment capital will be required, how many staff will be needed, etc. And we can't know until the amount of certain key expenses are settled. Negotiations are in progress to answer these questions. As Lauren noted at the USENET BOF in Atlanta, it is hoped that, if a business plan can be prepared in time, a testing period will commence in January 1986 and last for several months. During that period some hosts (exact number as yet undetermined) would be able to sign up for a small scale test of Stargate. This test would serve as a market survey and allow setting subscriber costs appropriately as well as establishing demand. Meanwhile, we are taking into account the statistics already collected by others about USENET. Incidentally, USENIX does not plan to run Stargate indefinitely. The hope is to have a separate organization take over after the testing period (or even during). We do not yet know whether that organization will be non-profit or for-profit. It is obviously preferable for it to be the former in order to keep subscriber costs down. However, it may be necessary to make it for-profit in order to raise capital to start it. We hope not. But we don't know yet. Many people seem to believe that Stargate is intended to replace USENET. This is not true: Stargate is an alternative service. The only way it would be likely to replace the existing network were if most USENET participants decided to drop out and become Stargate subscribers instead. This is conceivable, given a good enough Stargate service, but is hardly likely to happen immediately. No one involved with the project has proposed limiting redistribution of news received by Stargate, to my knowledge. Personally, I don't believe it could be done, even if it were desirable. Stargate is not the only possible competitor to USENET. There are others already and anyone is free to start another at any time. This does not mean that a competitor has to be exactly like COMPUSERVE, USENET, or any other existing network in content. Though it should be noted that the existence of COMPUSERVE has not destroyed USENET. Nor is Stargate the only network that USENIX is willing to consider supporting. In response to the desires of the USENIX membership, a Board member posted a request for proposals to USENET several months ago. It asked for proposals for improvements of mail or news service similar to the services currently provided by the UUCP mail and USENET news networks. I will repost it. Please be aware that more than a summary of proposed services or technical means of achieving them will be needed: a business plan for how to make it work financially is crucial. For instance, a frequently-overlooked item is staff to do billing. -- John Quarterman, UUCP: {gatech,harvard,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo}!ut-sally!im4u!jsq ARPA Internet and CSNET: jsq@im4u.UTEXAS.EDU, jsq@sally.UTEXAS.EDU
bass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass) (07/19/86)
In article <1018@im4u.UUCP>, jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) writes: > This article is intended to address a few mistaken assumptions > that have been posted recently. I am a member of the USENIX > Board and of the Board committee which is working on the Stargate > project, though my opinions do not necessarily reflect those > of the board as a whole. Thanks to John for the informative posting outlining the current actions and concerns plus the intent of service. This is much different than some of the postings asserting that Stargate would replace usenet. I would like to note for the record that I am not anti-Stargate, but rather have concern for usenet and what might replace it. The general lack of Stargate information for such a long time make it suspect. I (and most people) understand the difference between a business plan and working assumptions (and/or proposals). What I/we are really interested in is the working assumptions on costing and subscriber base since these affect greatly how much energy should be placed into looking alternatives (which include other ways of implementing Stargate as a non-profit effort). This is the data I know has been kicking around for most of the last year. If Stargate is essentially free (IE less than $50/month including cable service and equipment) then it would be nearly ideal in SOME ways. Since your business plan can not be complete until you have firm costing from the carriers and agreement from the USENIX board on funding the service, would you please post the cost/services/budget assumptions that you currently envision will be submitted and accepted for approval by USENIX. It is much easier to help when informed. Without information only well intended speculation can occur ... people like to SEE and PLAN where they are being lead. If you expect people to actively support this effort then they must be better informed than what has happened for the last year -- PARTICULARLY if you plan to place trial service into effect starting in January. Getting information AFTER THE FACT is useless!!!!! In fact it raises only more questions about how and why things are being done. Trust is a two way street ... to be trusted requires trusting. I will not accept having an undiscussed Stargate implemented defacto, most of my mail replies support this stand. I am more suprised that only I have been willing to post such concerns on the net. Your comment on staffing for billing/collections was quite interesting and quite like another area that is often overlooked ... janitorial services and supplies. Have fun ... eagerly awaiting some interesting data. -- John Bass (DBA:DMS Design) DMS Design (System Design, Performance and Arch Consultants) {dual,fortune,polyslo,hpda}!dmsd!bass (805) 541-1575
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/22/86)
> ... If you expect people to actively support this > effort then they must be better informed than what has happened for the > last year -- PARTICULARLY if you plan to place trial service into effect > starting in January. Getting information AFTER THE FACT is useless!!!!! If active support is irrelevant at this stage, why should Stargate go out of its way to solicit it? I would assume that when they want, e.g., participants for the January trials, they will say so. Doing everything in the glare of publicity is a sure way to kill a project. In case you don't remember, Usenix itself was formed as a fait accompli. The folks who did it got up and said "since everyone agrees that the Users' Group needs to be on a better legal footing, we have formed the Usenix Association, bylaws and fees are thus-and-such, please feel free to join". There was some grumbling at the time about why everybody and his dog wasn't consulted, to which the basic answer (as I recall) was "we didn't need everybody and his dog to get things started, and we wanted to get things done rather than talking about it endlessly". Personally, I feel that the resulting group certainly did not suffer for being created this way, and probably benefitted from it. Stargate, like Usenix, is not being crammed down our throats at gunpoint. We can always ignore it if it's dreadful. Why not wait and see? > ... I will not accept having an undiscussed Stargate implemented defacto... Why? It's not as if you were investing in it. If the people involved with Stargate think they can come up with something good, I'm perfectly happy to let them try. When and if it emerges, I will then decide whether I like it enough to participate in it. Did the people who built your machine consult you in its construction? Did the people who designed the chips that went into it consult you? Where are your cries of outrage over *their* presumptuous actions? Why the double standard? -- EDEC: Stupidly non-standard brain-damaged incompatible Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology proprietary protocol used. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry