usrgroup@utgpu.UUCP (08/05/87)
[ /usr/group/cdn has been assisting its members with UUCP connections. ] [ UUCP-related matters are the most common technical concern among our ] [ members. As a medium-term project, we have been moving toward something ] [ similar to UUNET, first with the BBS at ontmoh, then usrgroup at utgpu ] [ and eventually our own system to be used for our administration, as well ] [ as Canada-wide communications for the UNIX user community. ] [ /usr/group/cdn would like to help lobby for better rates, set up a cen- ] [ tral site, or establish a Canada-wide network, as appropriate. Is this ] [ (technically) a reasonable thing to do and is there support from the ] [ UNIX user community for such a project? We probably have the resources, ] [ especially with our corporate sponsors (AT&T, NCR, SUN, UNISYS, IBM, CT, ] [ etc), so long as there is sufficient user involvement. ] [ In the following article Taras Pryjma offers his views on the subject of ] [ a Canadian Unix Network and seeks to start a cross-Canada discussion. ] [ Peter ] ___________________________________________________________________________ /usr/group/cdn The Canadian Network of UNIX Users Peter Renzland 416/964-9141 VP, (User Services) utgpu!usrgroup (send mail to receive /usr/group/cdn Information Kit) Administrative Office 416/259-8122 241 Gamma St ETOBICOKE Ont M8W 4G7 ___________________________________________________________________________ At the last meeting of Unix Unanimous, the technical sig of /usr/group/cdn, the subject of uunet and various communications prob- lems that we as Canadian unix users face was brought up. The starting point for this discussion were postings that were made to the net in this news.group. In the states, USENIX has sponsored a machine called uunet that serves as a central backbone, that users for the first time pay money to con- nect to. The trick of course is that users pay much less to connect to uunet than they would for connections to other machines by traditional means. Uunet takes advantage of a special rate that Telenet has for late night users of its network. In order to make uunet work in the Canadian environment the same late night discounts would have to be made available from either Telecom Canada, Telenet, or CNCP telecommunications. In order to achieve this an intervention to the CRTC would need to be made, if the carriers do not see it in their own best self interest to provide the same late night discount that Telenet provides. Other consumer groups may object to our request on the assumption that this may increase the cost of basic telephone service by cross subsidization. If it is possible to reduce the telecommunications component of usenet, there would be no real reason to institute a special Canadian edition of uunet. Users would still be able to use the current uunet, or connect to other sites much in the same fashion that they do now except that they would take advantage of a highly discounted datapac tariff for their links. Other topics were also suggested, such as variants of Stargate and packet radio. The premise that Stargate was developed upon was that there was this bandwidth available at relatively no cost that could be piggybacked onto a national cable channel. The reality of the situa- tion is that other institutions want that same bandwidth and are wil- ling to pay much more money for it than us poor plebes. Even the CBC uses the vertical blanking for their teletex service. Packet radio at this point in time is so unreliable and slow so as to not warrent serious con- sideration. Nevermind the political wrangling that would have to be attained with the D.O.C. and CRTC in order for us to use it for our purposes... However looking more towards the future, something beyond uunet should be implemented that would answer these problems and future requirements. Something like an ARPANET or NSFNET would be ideal and by now Canada should have something like it. If such a network is to be established various things would have to be settled. What type of medium should carry the actual signal, Telesat Canada and their Anik Satellites with their quarter second delays, lower channel tariff and marketing representative who have no concept of either ethernet or multidrop lines, or Telecom Canada with their Megastream offering that is a lot more expensive but also a lot faster than Anik. For shorter portions of this network should terrestrial microwave be used? Which protocols would be supported and how? Politically should the entire network be built all at once, or in por- tions? Who should be allowed access to the network, for that matter who will pay for it and who should manage it? And also one of the bigger questions is what kind traffic should be allowed on this net? If time goes on, I could probably elucidate you on more areas of data communications in this great HUGE country of Canada. However the point of this article is to start a serious discussion on solutions to our net problems. In other words, WE WANT FEEDBACK!!!! Then with that we can start building something that we can be proud of using. What is YOUR opinion? Taras Pryjma uucp: taras@gpu.utcs bitnet: tpryjma@utoronto Bell: +1 (416) 536-2821
brad@looking.UUCP (08/06/87)
In article <1987Aug4.235121.22896@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> usrgroup@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Peter Renzland) writes: > >In order to make uunet work in the Canadian environment the same late >night discounts would have to be made available from either Telecom >Canada, Telenet, or CNCP telecommunications. In order to achieve this >an intervention to the CRTC would need to be made, if the carriers do >not see it in their own best self interest to provide the same >late night discount that Telenet provides. Other consumer >groups may object to our request on the assumption that this may >increase the cost of basic telephone service by cross subsidization. > Are you saying that you would lobby the CRTC to *force* carriers to provide us with lower rates? (Or are you saying that the CRTC's permission is required to charge lower rates?) If the former, you can bet that several people on the net would be the first in line to present counter claims to the CRTC. I have no desire to communicate through at net that is hated by the carriers who move the data. It's not ethical. If there were free trade in the telecommunications area, we wouldn't have to worry much about this, though. I have good hope for convincing the carriers to sell night service cheaply of their own free will. You must present it properly, though. Prepare an estimate of the data traffic (it will be large) and go to the offices of these places requesting a bid (not a quote) for high-volumne late night traffic (news) in combination with lower volume daytime traffic (mail). >If it is possible to reduce the telecommunications component of >usenet, there would be no real reason to institute a special Canadian >edition of uunet. Actually, one of the biggest advantages of a uunet scheme is economies of scale in administration. In particular, only one site need keep up to date routing information. Also, a more logical addressing scheme can be devised that is independent of changing physical data links. To me, this is as important as cost reduction. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/06/87)
> If it is possible to reduce the telecommunications component of > usenet, there would be no real reason to institute a special Canadian > edition of uunet... Actually, there is some reason for it, although for a slightly different reason. The key observation is that unless I'm missing something (this is not an area I'm expert in), reduced night rates for Datapac etc. benefit only those connections which have a Datapac hookup on at least one end. This is more common than it used to be, but remains far from universal. My impression is that it's not possible to use Datapac as a long-haul carrier between two phone-only sites -- and many, many Usenet sites do remain phone-only, since phones and modems are much easier to justify for mundane purposes than X.25 is. (There is actually a more global problem here in that Uunet services may not be easy to justify for mundane purposes either, but services and hardware often come out of separate budgets.) > ... The premise that Stargate was developed upon was that > there was this bandwidth available at relatively no cost that could be > piggybacked onto a national cable channel. The reality of the situa- > tion is that other institutions want that same bandwidth and are wil- > ling to pay much more money for it... Yup, quite true, as the Stargate people found when they started looking for a cable channel. A Canadian version of Stargate would be viable only if we could find what Stargate found: a channel (or at least vertical- interval) owner who was interested enough in the idea to donate the bandwidth at minimal cost. This possibility shouldn't be ruled out until/unless somebody actually looks around for such a benefactor, but I agree that pessimism is appropriate. > ... or Telecom Canada with their Megastream > offering that is a lot more expensive but also a lot faster than Anik. > For shorter portions of this network should terrestrial microwave be > used? Which protocols would be supported and how? As I've said before, clearly what we ought to have is coast-to-coast optical fiber, and never mind the silly microwave stuff. However, this would be rather a large initial step... Protocols should be left entirely to the customers except insofar as access to the medium demands adherence to standards. The last thing we need is a glorious wonderful network that is accessible only to those who have implemented a foot-thick ISO standard, because the network planners have decided to legislate compliance to the One True Way. The question should be not "Which protocols would be supported?" but "How can we give the customers the freedom to make this decision themselves?". Actually, right now the choice is obvious: almost everybody will want to talk either TCP/IP or uucico 'g' protocol, since they are an order of magnitude more widely available than any of the alternatives. -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
sl@van-bc.UUCP (08/07/87)
In article <859@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <1987Aug4.235121.22896@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> usrgroup@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Peter Renzland) writes: >> >>In order to make uunet work in the Canadian environment the same late >>night discounts would have to be made available from either Telecom >>Canada, Telenet, or CNCP telecommunications. In order to achieve this Don't forget Tymnet! >>an intervention to the CRTC would need to be made, if the carriers do I don't see what the CRTC has to say about Telenet or Tymnet (BTW does Telenet even operate in Canada?). >of their own free will. You must present it properly, though. Prepare an >estimate of the data traffic (it will be large) and go to the offices >of these places requesting a bid (not a quote) for high-volumne late >night traffic (news) in combination with lower volume daytime traffic >(mail). That's what I would like to do with Tymnet. Anyone who is interested in accessing UUNET at lower prices than the current $9US/hr should either send me email or contact MacDonald Douglas (Tymnet) directly at: David Kingsland 416-229-4449 After a month of discussion of this topic I can only assume that I'm about the only person interested in doing this :-( Mr. Kingsland is quite interested in getting our business, but right now he has no idea of the amount of potential traffic. UUNET has been using 400 hours per month of potential traffic from Canada. Is this correct? Is it high, low, what? Lets get going and have cheap rates implemented for the fall. -- {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
taras@utgpu.UUCP (08/08/87)
In article <859@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
#
# Are you saying that you would lobby the CRTC to *force* carriers to provide
# us with lower rates? (Or are you saying that the CRTC's permission is
# required to charge lower rates?)
#
Both, the carriers would have to be convinced that it would be in their
best interest to lower rates, which is not as impossible as it sounds, and
you would have to convince Adre Bureau and company (read CRTC) that a new
late night tarrif would be good for everyone concerned, which might be a
little harder.
Also Brad, the CRTC regulates all inter-provincial rates and intra-provincial
rates in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. Not to mention cross border
tarrifs as well.
# If the former, you can bet that several people on the net would be the
# first in line to present counter claims to the CRTC. I have no desire to
# communicate through at net that is hated by the carriers who move the
# data. It's not ethical. If there were free trade in the telecommunications
# area, we wouldn't have to worry much about this, though.
#
Yep your right, but you would probably have more worries about flaky service.
Remember, in data communications there is already competition, the competition
is CNCP and I wish I could say that their marketing reps had as many goodies
to offer as Telecomm Canada, but they do not. I'm not sure Brad that free
trade is just great as you make it out to be.
# I have good hope for convincing the carriers to sell night service cheaply
# of their own free will. You must present it properly, though. Prepare an
# estimate of the data traffic (it will be large) and go to the offices
# of these places requesting a bid (not a quote) for high-volume late
# night traffic (news) in combination with lower volume daytime traffic
# (mail).
#
I will however, be standing there beside you in your arguments to the carriers
why they should give us a similar rate that Tymnet gives to Usenix in the
states. Those Tymnet rates will be very convincing to both Telecom Canada and
the CRTC.
#
# >If it is possible to reduce the telecommunications component of
# >usenet, there would be no real reason to institute a special Canadian
# >edition of uunet.
#
# Actually, one of the biggest advantages of a uunet scheme is economies
# of scale in administration. In particular, only one site need keep
# up to date routing information. Also, a more logical addressing
# scheme can be devised that is independent of changing physical
# data links.
#
The cost of providing a machine is a insignificant matter. The real problem
is getting people to help in the maintenance of a Canadian Usenet node or nodes.
Eg. If the tarrifs are there, then a Canadian uunet will quickly be
established. However I still think that we should still looking to a
Canadian Internet to solve out communications problems.
# --
# Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
--
Taras Pryjma
uucp: taras@gpu.utcs
bitnet: tpryjma@utoronto
Bell: +1 (416) 536-2821
Ok then, It's settled. I will have my computer call your computer and work
it all out. ....... But wait ...... it won't do any good, never mind.taras@utgpu.UUCP (08/08/87)
In article <1115@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: # In article <859@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: # >In article <1987Aug4.235121.22896@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> taras@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Taras Pryjma) writes: # # Don't forget Tymnet! # # >>an intervention to the CRTC would need to be made, if the carriers do # # I don't see what the CRTC has to say about Telenet or Tymnet (BTW does # Telenet even operate in Canada?). # It is their job to regulate all carriers in Canada that includes CNCP, Telecomm Canada, Teleglobe or anybody else acting as a carrier for that matter. # # Anyone who is interested in accessing UUNET at lower prices than the # current $9US/hr should either send me email or contact MacDonald Douglas # (Tymnet) directly at: # # David Kingsland 416-229-4449 # # After a month of discussion of this topic I can only assume that I'm about # the only person interested in doing this :-( # Actually Stuart, I am more interested in developing a Canadian TCP/IP network than installing a Canadian version of uunet. UUNET Canada is great in the short term, but in long term we NEED something better. Reading news is one thing Stuart, but wouldn't you rather have the capability of ftp'ing your favourite programs or whatever instantaneously? It is done in the States, why should it not be done here? -- Taras Pryjma uucp: taras@gpu.utcs bitnet: tpryjma@utoronto Bell: +1 (416) 536-2821 Ok then, It's settled. I will have my computer call your computer and work it all out. ....... But wait ...... it won't do any good, never mind.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/09/87)
> ... in long term we NEED something better. Reading news is one > thing Stuart, but wouldn't you rather have the capability of ftp'ing your > favourite programs or whatever instantaneously? ... We need *both*, unless the latter capability can be had at cost equal to or lower than the former. Real-time communication certainly is useful, but one thing that Usenet demonstrates is that non-real-time communication is good enough for a lot of things. There will be many sites that won't be able to justify the extra price of fast real-time, if it does cost extra. (Remember that many sites' Official Budget for Usenet is ZERO.) One reason why utzoo -- a zoology department! -- was the first Canadian Usenet site [for all practical purposes]: several other more-likely-sounding sites were so mesmerized by the concept of real-time communication at high speeds that they disdained non-real-time communication at phone-line rates. They ended up joining Usenet later, when it had demonstrated its usefulness and their hypothetical fast real-time links were still hypothetical. It would be great to have a fast country-wide real-time network that anybody (not just universities!) could get onto at trivial cost. However, until that millenium arrives, let us not neglect possibilities for lesser improvements in network service. -- Support sustained spaceflight: fight | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the soi-disant "Planetary Society"! | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
tech@auvax.UUCP (08/11/87)
> Other topics were also suggested, such as variants of Stargate and > packet radio. The premise that Stargate was developed upon was that > Taras Pryjma > uucp: taras@gpu.utcs In addition to the flakiness of packet radio comes the question, what medium will you use to send it? Most packet radio work is being done by amateur radio operators who are making great strides forward - the present technology among the technical elite is tcp/ip on IBM-PC's using vhf multihop networks and some satelite work. Using high technical skill and the willingness to adapt obselete surplus equipment one could set up a tcp/ip packet radio site on 2 metres for under a thousand dollars easily - but computer professionals might be unwilling to do this because they are afraid to face the words obselete, surplus, and (gasp!) the dreaded vacuum tube. Sorry, I couldn't resist a snarky remark. The real problem is more serious. The ITU, DOC, FCC, various GPO regulations state specifically that amateur radio can only be used for non-commercial purposes so somebody has to export the technology and the common carriers aren't the place to go - they have a monopoly and they expect to be paid very well. The General Radio Service regulations (CB to you Americans) used to state that the service could not be used for trivial purposes - it was intended to provide cheap radio communications for small businesses, farms, etc. and personal communications for individuals (which means telling the wife to get the oil changed on the way home etc). Therefore if you were forming a non-profit, non-public network among cooperating instiutions and corporations for the exchange of non confidential information (like usenet) you might be able to justify it. I can't imagine using 27Mhz (56000 baud would be a real bear) but there is a chicken band up in 400 Mhz region some where which would be appropriate. I am not recommending this approach, I am just suggesting that packet radio is a possibility. ********* 73 ********** Richard Loken VE6BSV . **** .. **** Athabasca University .... **** Athabasca, Alberta Canada ..........**** ihnp4!alberta!auvax
taras@utgpu.UUCP (08/15/87)
In article <292@auvax.UUCP> tech@auvax.UUCP (Richard Loken) writes:
# In addition to the flakiness of packet radio comes the question, what medium
# will you use to send it?
#
# Most packet radio work is being done by amateur radio operators who are making
# great strides forward - the present technology among the technical elite is
# tcp/ip on IBM-PC's using vhf multihop networks and some satellite work. Using
# high technical skill and the willingness to adapt obsolete surplus equipment
# one could set up a tcp/ip packet radio site on 2 metres for under a thousand
# dollars easily - but computer professionals might be unwilling to do
# this because they are afraid to face the words obsolete, surplus, and
# (gasp!) the dreaded vacuum tube. Sorry, I couldn't resist a snarky remark.
# ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have nothing against vacuum tubes. For some applications, vacuum tubes are
still the best solution, however don't ask me to build a computer with them.
The major problem more than anything else is to make the system reliable and
I can't seem to do it with radio. Short Wave frequently runs into atmospheric
problems and FM radio in the 144Mhz only has a range of about 50 to 60 miles.
Sure, those sets don't cost too much money, but I can assure you that a lot
of time and effort has gone those radios, never mind the towers that those
radios are connected to. And in the case of repeaters the duplexers as well,
never mind that somebody has to look after the sites, which is going to be
a real big pain in some place like Nothern Ontario or the Rockies. Then you
still have to get permission to erect your transmitter and that is getting
harder to do all the time. If I were to go that route, and it certainly makes
sense for some portions, I would go the route of terrestrial microwave due to
the fact that it would give us the bandwidth we would require.
# The real problem is more serious. The ITU, DOC, FCC, various GPO regulations
# state specifically that amateur radio can only be used for non-commercial
# purposes so somebody has to export the technology and the common carriers
# aren't the place to go - they have a monopoly and they expect to be paid very
# well.
#
What you say is true, besides I would much rather have the amateurs hold onto
as much of their remaining bandwidth as possible, so that they can continue
to do wondrous things. Some of the carriers are not that expensive, right
now there are 3 carriers that can carry TCNET (Trans-Canada tcp-ip NET) coast
to coast. The carriers also know that if they do not get their act together
that more and more of their bussiness is going to go to American carriers
regardless of what Canadian law has to say about it.
# The General Radio Service regulations (CB to you Americans) used to state
# that the service could not be used for trivial purposes - it was intended
# to provide cheap radio communications for small businesses, farms, etc. and
# personal communications for individuals (which means telling the wife to
# get the oil changed on the way home etc). Therefore if you were forming a
# non-profit, non-public network among cooperating instiutions and corporations
# for the exchange of non confidential information (like usenet) you might
# be able to justify it. I can't imagine using 27Mhz (56000 baud would be a
# real bear) but there is a chicken band up in 400 Mhz region some where which
# would be appropriate.
#
Any band would have to come from the amateurs. I think a good rule of thumb
should be that radio should be used to contact very, very remote sites like
Baffin Island or mobiles, lets not waste it on something that can be carried
land line. How do you expect amateurs to continue doing good work if you keep
swiping their bands?
# I am not recommending this approach, I am just suggesting that packet radio
# is a possibility.
#
I did not automatically reject it either. Low cost just has this thing about
it that I rather like, but so does reliability and perception of same,
it encourages use!!!
# ********* 73
# ********** Richard Loken VE6BSV
#
If you want TCNET talk to your colleges about it, and post your opinions to
this group. With the current amount of traffic I see in this group, I get
the impression that there is little support for it. Remember ARPANET is not
privately funded, the Canadian high tech should have something similar, but
most political creatures will not listen to one voice, but they will listen
to many. Who will be the many?
--
Taras Pryjma
uucp: taras@gpu.utcs
bitnet: tpryjma@utoronto
Bell: +1 (416) 536-2821
Ok then, It's settled. I will have my computer call your computer and work
it all out. ....... But wait ...... it won't do any good, never mind.majka@ubc-vision.UUCP (08/18/87)
T. Pryjma writes: > How do you expect amateurs to continue doing good work if you keep > swiping their bands? Richard Loken writes: >Actually, I being an amateur wanted to finger the CB bands (leer, wink, wink) The 11 meter General Radio Service band (GRS in Canada, CB in the USA) was set aside for the great unwashed for a good reason. Propagation can be awful. It seems to get the very worst of disruptions and noise due to solar activity. I don't think that you would want it for packet radio. --- Marc Majka - VE7FIZ
lyndon@ncc.UUCP (08/18/87)
> The 11 meter General Radio Service band (GRS in Canada, CB in the USA) was > set aside for the great unwashed for a good reason. Propagation can be awful. > It seems to get the very worst of disruptions and noise due to solar activity. > I don't think that you would want it for packet radio. What's wrong with 11m? 10m has been acting up quite nicely lately. I can't see the difference between 27.xxx and 28.xxx. The problem with 11m is the content, not the media. The bottom line is we can't use the ham bands, so let's get back on track and start looking at some viable options. --lyndon VE6BBM