sl@van-bc.UUCP (07/03/87)
Is anyone out there interested in hooking into UUNET?
*****************************************************
While there are Tymnet access points in most major Canadian cities UUNET is
currently having problems getting Tymnet to allow cheap access from Canada.
Currently UUNET is charging $3/hr US for access from the continental US
during offpeak hours (7:00PM to 6:00AM).
They are charging $5/hr US for access from Hawaii.
Canadian access is $9/hr US.
********
Does this make sense to you? It certainly doesn't to me!
The basic problem is lack of one specific rate structure in Canada.
Specifically UUNET is utilizing a rate none as "Leisure time" available in
the US only. This amounts to $1/hr US plus about $.01/kb after the first
couple hundred kb/hr. In fact UUNET has been able to strike a deal which
allows them to charge a flat rate even though the character charge should
have put them up quite a bit higher, by guaranteeing 5000 hours of use per
month.
Tymnet has refused to allow this for Canada. In Canada UUNET must charge
normal offpeak charges of $9/hr US and $.01/kc. This works out to $9/hr US
with normal uucp type traffic at 2400 bps.
Is there any real reason for this?
**********************************
None that I can see. Tymnet does not have significantly higher costs of
doing business in Canada. And in fact almost all rates are the same in
Canada as in the US. We just don't rate getting this rate.
I contacted MacDonanal Douglas in Canada (who own Tymnet) about this.
They have been very helpful and want to help. But have not been able
to fix this problem yet.
Excuse number one (from their accounting department) is that it would take
3.5 weeks of programming effort to add leisure time to the Canadian rate
schedule.
Currently UUNET is recommending that Canadians use Datapac and access them
via X.25. The problem as I see it, is that the best rate for Datapac/Tymnet
is $2.75 / kpac + $.60 /hr holding charge. This works out to a theorectical
minimum of $22 per MB of data transferred.
Even at $9/hr UUNET should work out to about $20 / MB of data transferred.
($9 * 1.3 * 1.666 for .6mb / hour transfer rate.)
Is there anything we can do about this?
***************************************
Yes. I think that if enough people want to use this service, and make this
known to Tymnet we can get them to change their policies.
If you think as I do, that you're sick and tired of being treated as second
class citizens, please do one of the following:
- contact Tymnet directly
- send me mail (or call)
Please try and give an estimate of the number of hours per month you would
use the service.
A friendly contact at MacDonald Douglas in Canada is:
David Kingsland 416-229-4449
He is aware of the problem and is TRYING to get it fixed. If he can show his
higher up's that their is a significant amount of traffic just waiting to
use UUNET if the rate is changed, it will get changed. If we just sit around
and do nothing we will be doomed to live in isolation a little longer.
Mail to rick@seismo.css.gov probably would be helpful to. Just to show our
interest.
Lets face it folks. We have the potential here for getting access to UUNET
at the exact same rate as users in the US have. We could be on an
equal footing in terms of mail and news delivery.
Lets get to work on Tymnet and get our own version of free trade working!
--
{ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532lyndon@ncc.UUCP (07/03/87)
WHY do we have to bend over and grovel to the almighty americans? WHAT is to stop us from setting up a Canadian uunet? Is anyone from /usr/group/toro -- I mean /usr/group/cdn listening? If USENIX can sponsor this in the US, I see no reason why the Canadian /usr/group's can't get together and do the same. --lyndon
brad@looking.UUCP (07/04/87)
In article <954@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: > >Is there any real reason for this? >********************************** > >None that I can see. Tymnet does not have significantly higher costs of >doing business in Canada. And in fact almost all rates are the same in >Canada as in the US. We just don't rate getting this rate. You underestimate the capacity of the Canadian government for getting in the way of people trying to do cross-border business. I think it's still illegal, for example, to ship data from point A in Canada to point B in canada via point C in the USA. Usenet has always been semi-illegal because of this. Why does a federal express pac cost $40 from Canada. Why is a letter (no duty) cost $23? Why are airfares much higher? >Lets face it folks. We have the potential here for getting access to UUNET >at the exact same rate as users in the US have. We could be on an >equal footing in terms of mail and news delivery. Datapac is actually quite cheap when used properly. People like Compuserve and Genie could save their customers a fortune by getting a direct Datapac connection. (They put lines for their own net in Toronto, they could connect these lines to datapac and get a whole new slew of customers if they would just think about it!) One answer here is to put a UUNET relay in Canada, connected to datapac. Have the relay pay whatever charge is cheapest (9600 bps, tymnet etc.) to get all the stuff on demand from uunet, and then let people dial in via datapac, or direct in the local calling region. (thus it probably makes sense to put the Canadian uunet relay in T.O.) UUNET is an effort of U.S. user groups, why not have /usr/group/cdn or whoever fund a node. In theory, the hardware and X.25 software can be had from the US UUNET site. SMOP, perhaps. Based on phone bills of hundreds per month over Canadian links, such hardware could be paid for quickly enough. I can't volunteer them, but watmath and other vaxen already have X.25 links to datapac. Hard links to datapac are not that expensive at low baud rates. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
sl@van-bc.UUCP (07/04/87)
In article <824@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <954@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >You underestimate the capacity of the Canadian government for getting >in the way of people trying to do cross-border business. >I think it's still illegal, for example, to ship data from point A in >Canada to point B in canada via point C in the USA. Usenet has always It would be real fun to see them try and stop it :-). I can just see the mounties asking to see my log files. Sorry sir, I hope theres a copy on the backup tape. >been semi-illegal because of this. Why does a federal express pac cost >$40 from Canada. Why is a letter (no duty) cost $23? Why are airfares >much higher? Good point, it shouldn't! We can work on that one next week. > >>Lets face it folks. We have the potential here for getting access to UUNET >>at the exact same rate as users in the US have. We could be on an >>equal footing in terms of mail and news delivery. > >Datapac is actually quite cheap when used properly. People like Compuserve Datapac inside of Canda is still fairly expensive. For me to access Toronto is still $1.38 / KP using Datapac 3000. This will give me an effective transfer cost of about $5.52. This compares to $4 CDN for UUNET if we can get the same rate that is charged in the US. This assumes that I have also got X.25 hardware and software. And ignores the fact that the sign up fee for UUNET is about $40 CDN as compared to $90 for off net Datapac 3000 service. In Toronto the cost is only about $.22 / KP, but then why use Datapac when you can make a call for free. >and Genie could save their customers a fortune by getting a direct Datapac >connection. (They put lines for their own net in Toronto, they could connect >these lines to datapac and get a whole new slew of customers if they would >just think about it!) I don't think so. Datapac is semi reasonable for host-host using Datapac 3000 service. Datapac 3101 is a fair bit more (more than double for the most part). >One answer here is to put a UUNET relay in Canada, connected to datapac. Personally I'll take the increased connectivity of UUNET. Why introduce and extra delay. >Have the relay pay whatever charge is cheapest (9600 bps, tymnet etc.) That's the whole point. There is no current "cheapest" way. UUNET is $9/hr in offpeak (7:00PM to 6:00AM). Datapac/Tymnet is $23/MB of data. Long distance from Toronto is probably on the order of $10 Cdn from 12:00PM to 8:00AM. >to get all the stuff on demand from uunet, and then let people dial in >via datapac, or direct in the local calling region. (thus it probably makes >sense to put the Canadian uunet relay in T.O.) ^^^^^^ Unfortunately your right. Maybe I should move back home to Ontario ... >UUNET is an effort of U.S. user groups, why not have /usr/group/cdn or >whoever fund a node. In theory, the hardware and X.25 software can >be had from the US UUNET site. SMOP, perhaps. Actually /usr/group/cdn might be able to play a role in just getting us a better hookup to UUNET. The possibility exists to setup a separate billing account from Canada for Canadian customers. This would have the rate set by the Canadain side of Tymnet who may be more interested in trying to get our business. This would require some responsible party who would guarantee the payment, and invoice and collect the money. Actually I suspect you could get UUNET to actually issue the invoices. The billing is based on the uucico connect time on their machine (you can get better stats direct from Tymnet if you want to issue separate Tymnet user id's but that costs $6 / month per id). >other vaxen already have X.25 links to datapac. Hard links to datapac are >not that expensive at low baud rates. Still $82 for off net 1200 bps, and $90 for off net 2400 bps. Not to mention X.25 hardware and software. Anyway I am not convinced that we could offer a cheaper service from a site in Canada. Remember that the communications costs are not the only cost. While UUNET charges $3/hr US, they have budgeted into this approxiametely $1 US to cover the capital costs of the equipment they are purchasing, and the operating costs. Given the above example of Vancouver to Toronto, this would put the billed cost up to something in the order of $6.50 per hour. Of course there is a place for this service in providing A Canadian mail system that is extremely inexpensive and not sensitive to when it is used. That is being proved every day. But for low cost news, and low cost overnight mail, I don't think we can beat UUNET. -- {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
sl@van-bc.UUCP (07/04/87)
In article <1477@ncc.UUCP> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: > >WHY do we have to bend over and grovel to the almighty americans? Last I heard it was called USenet :-) I don't consider it grovelling. The fact is if you want to restrict yourself to the can. groups, or only articles generated in Canada, you'll get pretty bored (Brad Templeton, David Sherman and Henry Spencer aside). This actually happened to us the west coast in February. Alberta lost their ihpn4 link. Feed went from a pretty consistent 1MB of compressed feed per day to a handful of articles filtering in from back east. Pretty boring 3 weeks! I simply want to get the lowest cost access to the news, and mail. > >WHAT is to stop us from setting up a Canadian uunet? Nothing. I just don't think that it's a) neccessary or b) cost effective. What is stopping us from using UUNET? Perhaps you're falling prey to the Not Invented Here Syndrome. >Is anyone from /usr/group/toro -- I mean /usr/group/cdn listening? >If USENIX can sponsor this in the US, I see no reason why the >Canadian /usr/group's can't get together and do the same. I think that /usr/group/cdn could definitely help us to encourage Tymnet to implement the appropriate rate structures. This will cost them only a little time and energy. Setting up a site like UUNET will involve a substantial commitment of $$$. Usenix guaranteed $39,000 US for the first phase of UUNET. Two questions: a) does /usr/group/cdn have $39,000 US b) is there enough traffic in Canada to justify such an expenditure. Personally if someone wants to setup a UUNET in Canada with a similiar array of services at a similiar cost to what UUNET is charging in the US I'm all for it. It would also be nice if this was done sometime in the next couple of months, even this year. Think we can move that fast? -- {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
john@bby-bc.UUCP (07/04/87)
In article <824@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > In article <954@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: > > > >Is there any real reason for this? > >********************************** > > > >None that I can see. Tymnet does not have significantly higher costs of > >doing business in Canada. And in fact almost all rates are the same in > >Canada as in the US. We just don't rate getting this rate. > > You underestimate the capacity of the Canadian government for getting > in the way of people trying to do cross-border business. > > I think it's still illegal, for example, to ship data from point A in > Canada to point B in canada via point C in the USA. Usenet has always > been semi-illegal because of this. Why does a federal express pac cost > $40 from Canada. Why is a letter (no duty) cost $23? Why are airfares > much higher? I think you could more reasonably put this down to the desire to make what the traffic will bear than governmental interference. If what you are saying was true I wouldn't have been able to send a 5kg package from Vancouver to Texas by UPS for $8, or a 24kg package from LA to Vancouver for $45 (by UPS), or get a return airfare from Vancouver to LAX for $285 on CP Air. It is not the Canadian government it is business that results in the higher prices. Why does a Sony CDP1302 list for $1900 at a time when the US list is approx. $1270 ($950 US) - they both have to come from Japan. Why does an Everex Qic02 tape unit cost $2500 here in Vancouver and only $1500 if bought in the US and shipped here ($1500 includes exchange, FST, and shipping)? Why does an HP LaserJet-II list for $3400 ($2500 US) in the US and $4700 here in Canada? You don't have to look far to find examples like this. There are companies which don't do this, e.g. Atari seems to sell the ST for about the same in Canada as the US price + exchange + FST. This sort of stuff really pisses me off but I don't think you can lay the blame at the government's door. john
lyndon@ncc.UUCP (07/04/87)
In article <824@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > > You underestimate the capacity of the Canadian government for getting > in the way of people trying to do cross-border business. > > I think it's still illegal, for example, to ship data from point A in > Canada to point B in canada via point C in the USA. Usenet has always > been semi-illegal because of this. Not true. There are already carriers operating out of Washington that pick up traffic from Vancouver and route it to Ontario via the U.S. Alberta Gov't Telephones has been bitching about this at recent rate hearings. > Datapac is actually quite cheap when used properly. People like Compuserve > and Genie could save their customers a fortune by getting a direct Datapac > connection. (They put lines for their own net in Toronto, they could connect > these lines to datapac and get a whole new slew of customers if they would > just think about it!) Has anyone investigated the new Datapac "dialout service" for setting up UUCP links. The idea is that entering a certain Datapac address will connect you to a modem in [Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton] which then prompts you for a local telephone number to dial.Trouble is it only runs at 1200 baud (on the dialout), and only supports 7 bits even parity (can you believe it?) > One answer here is to put a UUNET relay in Canada, connected to datapac. > Have the relay pay whatever charge is cheapest (9600 bps, tymnet etc.) > to get all the stuff on demand from uunet, and then let people dial in > via datapac, or direct in the local calling region. (thus it probably makes > sense to put the Canadian uunet relay in T.O.) Oh come on! Why don't we all just move to Toronto and eliminate long distance completely. > UUNET is an effort of U.S. user groups, why not have /usr/group/cdn or > whoever fund a node. In theory, the hardware and X.25 software can > be had from the US UUNET site. SMOP, perhaps. Whatever happened to "buy Canadian" :-)
lyndon@ncc.UUCP (07/04/87)
In article <959@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: > > This actually happened to us the west coast in February. Alberta lost their > ihpn4 link. Feed went from a pretty consistent 1MB of compressed feed per > day to a handful of articles filtering in from back east. Pretty boring 3 > weeks! Which is rather strange given that ubc-vision is a backbone site. When the ihnp4 link went down, a few of us went into "crisis mode" to figure out an alternative. Thus was born the link between alberta and mnetor (which is now working in both directions). Of the alternatives, the best all involved redundent X.25 links between major sites, with leaf sites coming in via dialup to this "mini- backbone." > I simply want to get the lowest cost access to the news, and mail. The X.25 scenario turned out to be much cheaper than LD. > >WHAT is to stop us from setting up a Canadian uunet? > Nothing. I just don't think that it's a) neccessary or b) cost effective. What concerns me the most is that uunet will become another ihnp4 - everybody comes to count on them for mail/news, then they go down for a week... Uunet is a service that is long overdue. I would like to see it made more robust by having more than one "uunet" in the world. Don't forget 800 and 900 toll free and toll reduced calling are viable alternatives to X.25 as well.
brad@looking.UUCP (07/05/87)
In article <132@bby-bc.UUCP> john@bby-bc.UUCP (john) writes: >I think you could more reasonably put this down to the desire to make >what the traffic will bear than governmental interference. If what >you are saying was true I wouldn't have been able to send a 5kg package >from Vancouver to Texas by UPS for $8, or a 24kg package from LA to >Vancouver for $45 (by UPS), or get a return airfare from Vancouver >to LAX for $285 on CP Air. Can you do this with next day delivery? Have you done it? UPS tells me that there will be a $25 to $30 customs brokerage charge to ship a large package to the USA. They have charged me each time I have done it, so I don't know how you get away with it. (By the way, the brokerage fee of $30 is for stuff with a duty of 3 CENTS) > >It is not the Canadian government it is business that results in the >higher prices. > >Why does a Sony CDP1302 list for $1900 at a time when the US list is >approx. $1270 ($950 US) - they both have to come from Japan. > >Why does an Everex Qic02 tape unit cost $2500 here in Vancouver and >only $1500 if bought in the US and shipped here ($1500 includes >exchange, FST, and shipping)? > >Why does an HP LaserJet-II list for $3400 ($2500 US) in the US and $4700 >here in Canada? I don't mean to be rude, but somebody sold you a bill of goods, and you paid full duty, brokerage and 12% F.S.T. on it. How on Earth do you think the Canadian dealer manages to make money selling the LaserJet for $4700 when anybody can order one from the states for $3400? If there were free trade (real, free trade, not the stuff that Mulroney is talking about) then there would be no discrepencies. The Canadian dealer charges more because there is a hassle getting stuff over the border. It takes effort to get stuff over the border, so dealers charge more for doing it. If customers didn't think it was a better deal to buy a LaserJet for $4700 than to import one themselves, the dealers would go broke. This is not to say that many businesses don't charge a lot for handling the red tape for you. They charge what the market will bear, like any good business. But there wouldn't be any price difference without the government red tape. I know. I ship to and from the USA on a regular basis, and it often makes me want to move south. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
reid@sask.UUCP (07/05/87)
In article <1480@ncc.UUCP>, lyndon@ncc.UUCP writes: > In article <959@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: > > I simply want to get the lowest cost access to the news, and mail. > The X.25 scenario turned out to be much cheaper than LD. Do you have any hard data, or can you point me to anyone who might have hard data? We currently get all our news over a 300 baud uncompressed leased line to alberta, and rely on ihnp4 (icky poo) for our main mail feed. We do have a datapac link on campus, but the hardware here is such that you can't bill to our number, because there's no way to tell who's connecting from our end. I'm in the process of setting up a proposal to present to our Facilities Committee to: (a) start using our existing datapac link for mail contacts, if we can find forwarders willing to pay for the call (ihnp4 and utcsri already call us at their own expense, over LD telephone), (b) try to get our newsfeed over onto datapac (if it's cheaper than the 300baud leased line), and (c) get a UUNET connection. (b) and (c) may require changing our datapac connection so that calls can be billed from our end, if paying someone else to receive collect calls is either more expensive or administratively unfeasible. Any data which you, or anyone you know of, can send me will be much appreciated. -- - irving - (reid@sask.uucp or {alberta, ihnp4, utcsri}!sask!reid) Whose idea was this, anyway?
john@bby-bc.UUCP (07/05/87)
> it, so I don't know how you get away with it. (By the way, the brokerage > fee of $30 is for stuff with a duty of 3 CENTS) The brokerage fee is separate from the shipping fee and depends on who you use. UPS, for example, will call me when a parcel arrives here in Vancouver and ask me if I want them to do the brokerage - if I don't then either I have a broker at the airport do it for me or I go down and do it myself. Different companies charge in different ways, some with a minimum fee or a flat fee others by a sliding percentage of the value of the goods. I have never been charged very much for brokerage. > > > >It is not the Canadian government it is business that results in the > >higher prices. > > < my examples of grossly higher list prices in Canada vs the US > > > I don't mean to be rude, but somebody sold you a bill of goods, and you > paid full duty, brokerage and 12% F.S.T. on it. > > How on Earth do you think the Canadian dealer manages to make money > selling the LaserJet for $4700 when anybody can order one from the states > for $3400? If there were free trade (real, free trade, not the stuff that > Mulroney is talking about) then there would be no discrepencies. > > The Canadian dealer charges more because there is a hassle getting stuff > over the border. It takes effort to get stuff over the border, so > dealers charge more for doing it. If customers didn't think it was a > better deal to buy a LaserJet for $4700 than to import one themselves, the > dealers would go broke. But your are ignoring my examples. Why is, e.g. the HP list price almost twice what it is in the states when exchange + duty (there is none) +fst only account for a factor of 1.5? All though there is some small overhead for trans border shipping a big company will get very good brokerage at a low per unit cost. I had an oem agreement with cdc for their smd and mmd drives and the prices they quoted to me were their US oem prices + whatever the current exchange,duty,fst were when the order was placed - not overinflated prices for the canadian market. Much of the stuff in the US is imported from Japan - why is the price there significantly lower than here (I am talking the manufacturer's list price). It must cost about the same to cross the US border as the Canadian border. If your arguments were true then all items would be twice the price in Canada. They are clearly not - tv's and other consumer electronic items to give just one example are competitively priced in Canada. The real problem is gouging. Why do people pay the extra? One reason is that if you buy it from a foreign company you have to return it there for warranty service - many people will pay extra to be able to have someone local to deal with. Another reason is that most people seem afraid to purchase equipment by mail order - they want to actually se the thing in front of them before they lay out $$.
sl@van-bc.UUCP (07/05/87)
In article <1480@ncc.UUCP> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >In article <959@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >> >> This actually happened to us the west coast in February. Alberta lost their >> ihpn4 link. Feed went from a pretty consistent 1MB of compressed feed per >> day to a handful of articles filtering in from back east. Pretty boring 3 >> weeks! > >Which is rather strange given that ubc-vision is a backbone site. Yes, but almost all news comes in from Alberta, not from uw-beaver. >When the ihnp4 link went down, a few of us went into "crisis mode" >to figure out an alternative. Thus was born the link between alberta A hearty thank you from all of us here on the West Coast! >and mnetor (which is now working in both directions). Of the >alternatives, the best all involved redundent X.25 links between >major sites, with leaf sites coming in via dialup to this "mini- >backbone." Things have improved greatly since then. So your solution has helped. >Uunet is a service that is long overdue. I would like to see it made >more robust by having more than one "uunet" in the world. Don't forget >800 and 900 toll free and toll reduced calling are viable alternatives >to X.25 as well. I think we will see more than one eventually, but we have to use up the capacity of the first one first. There are two fairly obvious facts to remember: a) a second UUNET would probably still be in the US, b) it will probably be run by the same people and take advantage of the same Tymnet access. This means that if we don't get access to the first at lower prices, having a second won't benefit us, except for improved reliability. The best scenario for reliability is simply to expand the existing UUNET installation with multiple CPU's which all answer calls on Tymnet and appear as one large installation. If one of several goes down you simply tell Tymnet to reduce the number of active logins allowed until your up again. I think that UUNET will prove to be a bit more solid than ihnp4. UUNET only exists to do this type of work. Ihnp4 does it just because they are nice people. -- {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
sl@van-bc.UUCP (07/05/87)
In article <1479@ncc.UUCP> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >Has anyone investigated the new Datapac "dialout service" for setting up >UUCP links. The idea is that entering a certain Datapac address will Tymnet also has dial-out service. I will try and get pricing for both. >> UUNET is an effort of U.S. user groups, why not have /usr/group/cdn or >> whoever fund a node. In theory, the hardware and X.25 software can >> be had from the US UUNET site. SMOP, perhaps. >Whatever happened to "buy Canadian" :-) ^^^^^^^^^^^^ What products did you have in mind. -- {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
craig@unicus.UUCP (Craig D. Hubley) (07/06/87)
>> You underestimate the capacity of the Canadian government for getting >> in the way of people trying to do cross-border business. > >I think you could more reasonably put this down to the desire to make >what the traffic will bear than governmental interference. If what >you are saying was true I wouldn't have been able to send a 5kg package >from Vancouver to Texas by UPS for $8, or a 24kg package from LA to >Vancouver for $45 (by UPS), or get a return airfare from Vancouver >to LAX for $285 on CP Air. > >It is not the Canadian government it is business that results in the >higher prices. Nonsense. Drivel. Trash. If it weren't for government regulations and tariffs and other sorts of interference, I could buy the thing from the States myself for $1270+shipping. They'd sell it to me, too. Right now, Canadian business doesn't have to compete with that. That is clearly the fault of the government, who makes the rules. If various incompentent Canadian businessmen make a lot of money because they aren't really forced to compete properly, whose fault is that? Wouldn't you do the same? And they have to deal with borders as well, plus smaller volumes, high shipping costs, higher taxes and labour costs. Add it all up, and it doesn't leave much. > Why does a Sony CDP1302 list for $1900 at a time when the US list is > approx. $1270 ($950 US) - they both have to come from Japan. This is particularly vile as applied to imports, since the ONLY place those extra bucks will go is into the hands of government and the 'free-riders' who know we don't have a choice. The only "Canadian jobs" it protects are those who have to work that much harder to sell the stuff at inflated prices. If some industries are subjected less than others to this abuse, and manage to deliver goods cheaper, more power to 'em. As for the rest, open up the borders. Outdated trivia like separate CSA vs UL standards ought to be cleared out along with it. If the "free trade" flap does that much, it'll be to the better. The more attention I pay to this stuff, the more I think that these regulations exist only to foul the traffic. How much better off would the Canadian economy be if Canadians paid US scale for capital goods? "Tax Reform", Wilson style, only throws more sand in the gears. >This sort of stuff really pisses me off but I don't think you can >lay the blame at the government's door. I do. The only thing between me and that $1270 Sony is the border. Government manages the border, not business. If they don't let me take it across, or void my warranties when I do, or charge me tariffs, it's them doing it, not business. Business just deals with the red tape itself and charges us for the trouble. And then you pay taxes on the trouble.
mason@tmsoft.UUCP (07/06/87)
(Note that followups are directed to news.admin)
Rayan Zachariassen (rayan@utai), Peter Renzland (peter@ontmoh / usrgroup@utgpu),
Tom Molnar (molnar@utgpu) and I have discussed ways that /usr/group/cdn can
help and support the Canadian Usenet. Peter, Tom and myself are Directors on
the "Technical Services" committee. We have not reached any conclusions, but
we have already discussed all the options proposed in this discussion so far.
Let me try to address some of the questions/comments, and then suggest a useful
course of action.
% From: sl@van-bc.UUCP
% Is anyone out there interested in hooking into UUNET?
Yes. This does seem desirable. More for the access to 'FTPable' software
and mail than for news.
# From: lyndon@ncc.UUCP
# WHY do we have to bend over and grovel to the almighty americans?
More or less my feeling.
# WHAT is to stop us from setting up a Canadian uunet?
# Is anyone from /usr/group/cdn listening?
Yes, we are discussing this. But some other people make valid points:
$ From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
$ One answer here is to put a UUNET relay in Canada, connected to datapac.
$ ...
$ UUNET is an effort of U.S. user groups, why not have /usr/group/cdn or
$ whoever fund a node. In theory, the hardware and X.25 software can
$ be had from the US UUNET site. SMOP, perhaps.
$
$ Based on phone bills of hundreds per month over Canadian links, such hardware
$ could be paid for quickly enough.
This is the question I want to address at the end of all this.
% From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
% Datapac inside of Canda is still fairly expensive. For me to access Toronto
% is still $1.38 / KP using Datapac 3000. This will give me an effective
% transfer cost of about $5.52. This compares to $4 CDN for UUNET if we can get
% the same rate that is charged in the US. This assumes that I have also got
% X.25 hardware and software. And ignores the fact that the sign up fee for
% UUNET is about $40 CDN as compared to $90 for off net Datapac 3000 service.
Possibly we can get the same kind of bulk discount that UUNET is getting
from TYMNET from Datapac
% Personally I'll take the increased connectivity of UUNET. Why introduce and
% extra delay.
There are 2 issues here. Some people just want to be connected to UUNET, and
others want to improve connectivity in Canada in general. There is no reason
that a delay of more than a few minutes should be introduced between UUNET and
the Canadian equivalent.
% That's the whole point. There is no current "cheapest" way.
There is a "cheapest", but maybe not a "cheap".
% >sense to put the Canadian uunet relay in T.O.)
% ^^^^^^
% Unfortunately your right. Maybe I should move back home to Ontario ...
Being from the east coast, I concur with the "unfortunately", but it
does appear to make the most economic sense (that's what "they" always say :-)
% Actually /usr/group/cdn might be able to play a role in just getting us a
% better hookup to UUNET. The possibility exists to setup a separate billing
% account from Canada for Canadian customers. This would have the rate set by
% the Canadain side of Tymnet who may be more interested in trying to get our
% business. This would require some responsible party who would guarantee the
% payment, and invoice and collect the money. Actually I suspect you could get
% UUNET to actually issue the invoices.
This is a possibility if a Canadian hub doesn't work out economically, but it
sounds like a lot of headaches for small potential gains.
% Anyway I am not convinced that we could offer a cheaper service from a site
% in Canada.
Nor am I, but I think it's worth exploring.
% ... Given the above example of Vancouver to Toronto, this would
% put the billed cost up to something in the order of $6.50 per hour.
Unless we can get a bulk rate.
% Of course there is a place for this service in providing A Canadian mail
% system that is extremely inexpensive and not sensitive to when it is used.
% That is being proved every day. But for low cost news, and low cost
% overnight mail, I don't think we can beat UUNET.
Actually the price competitor to a Canadian hub is probably the status quo.
(at least as long as the sites that are currently carrying the load continue)
% From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
% I don't consider it grovelling. The fact is if you want to restrict yourself
% to the can. groups, or only articles generated in Canada, you'll get pretty
% bored (Brad Templeton, David Sherman and Henry Spencer aside).
The net itself is interesting because it is approaching global, I think the
grovelling comment was addressed to connecting to UUNET.
% Nothing. I just don't think that it's a) neccessary or b) cost effective.
You may be right, but let's take a real look at it.
% What is stopping us from using UUNET? Perhaps you're falling prey to the
% Not Invented Here Syndrome.
See above. There are 2 different issues at play here.
% Two questions:
% a) does /usr/group/cdn have $39,000 US
Not at present.
% b) is there enough traffic in Canada to justify such an expenditure.
If there is, we may be able to raise the necessary money. In particular
we probably don't need anywhere as large a system (at least in terms of CPU).
% Personally if someone wants to setup a UUNET in Canada with a similiar array
% of services at a similiar cost to what UUNET is charging in the US I'm all
% for it. It would also be nice if this was done sometime in the next couple
% of months, even this year. Think we can move that fast?
Possibly. It depends how clear cut the results of my poll will be, see below.
# From: lyndon@ncc.UUCP
# Which is rather strange given that ubc-vision is a backbone site.
# When the ihnp4 link went down, a few of us went into "crisis mode"
# to figure out an alternative. Thus was born the link between alberta
# and mnetor (which is now working in both directions). Of the
# alternatives, the best all involved redundent X.25 links between
# major sites, with leaf sites coming in via dialup to this "mini-
# backbone."
This is part of why I think a Canadian hub may be workable.
# > I simply want to get the lowest cost access to the news, and mail.
# The X.25 scenario turned out to be much cheaper than LD.
The problem is that many sites get a free ride, & this skews their view of
the real costs involved.
# Uunet is a service that is long overdue. I would like to see it made
# more robust by having more than one "uunet" in the world. Don't forget
# 800 and 900 toll free and toll reduced calling are viable alternatives
# to X.25 as well.
Yes, we should look at all the alternatives.
# Has anyone investigated the new Datapac "dialout service" for setting up
# UUCP links. The idea is that entering a certain Datapac address will
# connect you to a modem in [Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton] which then
# prompts you for a local telephone number to dial.Trouble is it only
# runs at 1200 baud (on the dialout), and only supports 7 bits even
# parity (can you believe it?)
Hey, computer communications just means hanging terminals on remote
computers, doesn't it? :-)
# Oh come on! Why don't we all just move to Toronto and eliminate long
# distance completely.
Because it's a big city, and most of you have the good sense or good fortune
to not have to live here. This has always been on of Canada's big problems,
(a relatively small population spread across a wide country (some would say
Toronto's always been one of Canada's big problems :-))
but it has led to opportunities in the past, and the trick here is to find
the opportunities & overcome the problems. In particular making it so
everybody can participate more-or-less equally in the world usenet community.
# > UUNET is an effort of U.S. user groups, why not have /usr/group/cdn or
# > whoever fund a node. In theory, the hardware and X.25 software can
# > be had from the US UUNET site. SMOP, perhaps.
#
# Whatever happened to "buy Canadian" :-)
I'm sure we will find much of what we need here.
* From: reid@sask.UUCP (I am NOT your Sweet Baboo)
* Do you have any hard data, or can you point me to anyone who might have hard
* data? We currently get all our news over a 300 baud uncompressed leased
You should definitely compress it!
Well, this is already pretty long,so let me get to the point.
Lots of good ideas in the above, but they all make assumptions that *I* don't
know are valid (& I doubt anyone else does). The time has come to try &
gather some hard data. I will post to news.software.b a shar file that has
an anaylsis program to analyse your news and mail files. It will gather
statistics on who brings you your mail and news (i.e. what Canadian sites
handle your traffic from outside the country). It does this by scanning
through the Path: header checking each site for being in the can.sites.h
file (which I extracted from the most recent news.maps posting). It also
tells you what the average delay for the news and mail is.
I am going to be away for a few weeks; but in early August I will ask
everyone to run this program, and send me the results along with an
approximation to how much you spend on uucp phone calls/month. What I
hope to be able to figure out from this is whether a Canadian usenet hub
is feasible or not. I will treat the numbers in confidence (i.e. you
don't have to worry about your boss finding out how much you really spend
bringing in news). I also want to determine if it can provide significantly
improved service.
If you write me back real-soon (<2 days), I will try to respond. Otherwise
feel free to mail the people at the top of this note with your ideas and
comments, & I'll talk to you again in August.
../Dave Mason, ..!{utzoo seismo!mnetor utcsri utgpu lsuc}!tmsoft!mason
TM Software Associates (Compilers & System Consulting)
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, School of Computer Science
/usr/group/cdn President (yah, IT's all my fault)lyndon@ncc.UUCP (07/06/87)
> [...] Ihnp4 does it just because they are nice > people. And HOW much money do people pump into AT&T every month to call ihnp4 :-?
lyndon@ncc.UUCP (07/06/87)
> >> [...] In theory, the hardware and X.25 software can > >> be had from the US UUNET site. SMOP, perhaps. > > >Whatever happened to "buy Canadian" :-) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > What products did you have in mind. I guess what I meant was, why buy from "the US UUNET" site when there are lots of starving Canadian vendors (read: me) who would be MORE than willing to sell you a system and X.25 :-) --lyndon
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (07/07/87)
In article <967@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >In article <1480@ncc.UUCP> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >>In article <959@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >>> >>> This actually happened to us the west coast in February. Alberta lost their >>> ihpn4 link. Feed went from a pretty consistent 1MB of compressed feed per >>> day to a handful of articles filtering in from back east. Pretty boring 3 >>> weeks! >> >>Which is rather strange given that ubc-vision is a backbone site. > >Yes, but almost all news comes in from Alberta, not from uw-beaver. Isn't a backbone supposed to have redundant feeds to deal with ths problem? In theory, if uw-beaver!ubc-vision is a backbone link, then any news which doesn't come through the other link should find its way in through that link. I know that in some cases this rule is honoured in the breach. At mnetor, for example, they feed everything to seismo except things which have already been to clyde and some other sites; which avoids sending things back to the US that have already been there (and arrived at mnetor through the backup clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!mnetor). This violates the rule in that it assumes that anything that has been to clyde will otherwise make it to seismo on its own. Given that cost of Datapac/U.S. gatewaying, I don't blame the mnetor sysadmins for this; I'm just curious as to how much of this happens on other feeds. David Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- { seismo!mnetor cbosgd!utgpu watmath decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave
sl@van-bc.UUCP (07/11/87)
In article <1482@ncc.UUCP> lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >> >> [...] In theory, the hardware and X.25 software can >> >> be had from the US UUNET site. SMOP, perhaps. >> >> >Whatever happened to "buy Canadian" :-) >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> What products did you have in mind. > >I guess what I meant was, why buy from "the US UUNET" site when >there are lots of starving Canadian vendors (read: me) who would >be MORE than willing to sell you a system and X.25 :-) > >--lyndon And what I really meant, was what services do you have in mind. I want to buy a UUNET type service. Read cheap overnight access to news and mail and ftp'able (well actually uucp'able) software, on an international basis. I don't particularly want to buy or build another computer system. So when you can offer me a UUNET service at UUNET prices then I'll buy Canadian, until then I'm going to continue to get the prices down. This is not to say I won't be extremely interested in helping to get a home grown effort started, but I think the first step might be just to use the existing service. Of course I do insist that because UUNET is located on the East side of the Continent, it only makes sense to locate CANNET on the West Side. I hereby volunteer Vancouver :-) Maybe I can get a Federal Subsidy :-) -- {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
sl@van-bc.UUCP (07/11/87)
In article <1911@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >In article <967@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >>>Which is rather strange given that ubc-vision is a backbone site. >>Yes, but almost all news comes in from Alberta, not from uw-beaver. >Isn't a backbone supposed to have redundant feeds to deal with ths >problem? In theory, if uw-beaver!ubc-vision is a backbone link, then >any news which doesn't come through the other link should find >its way in through that link. In theory this may be true, but ubc-vision gets virtually no news from uw-beaver. It is apparently used for mail. They also dial up seismo for mail on a demand basis (actually X.25). Whey the ihnp4/alberta link went down, the did get uw-beaver to turn on a limited number of news groups, comp, and news I think. The justification for this is simply the cost. >I know that in some cases this rule is honoured in the breach. At >mnetor, for example, they feed everything to seismo except things >which have already been to clyde and some other sites; which avoids >sending things back to the US that have already been there (and arrived >at mnetor through the backup clyde!watmath!water!utgpu!utzoo!mnetor). >This violates the rule in that it assumes that anything that has >been to clyde will otherwise make it to seismo on its own. Given >that cost of Datapac/U.S. gatewaying, I don't blame the mnetor >sysadmins for this; I'm just curious as to how much of this happens >on other feeds. Cost is definitely the problem. Which is precisely the reason for trying to convince Tymnet to let us access UUNET for $3.00 US / hour. Brings the cost of a full feed to under $300 per month. We could then see one or two more full feeds into Canada. -- {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
lyndon@ncc.UUCP (07/12/87)
In article <986@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: > Of course I do insist that because UUNET is located on the East side of the > Continent, it only makes sense to locate CANNET on the West Side. I hereby > volunteer Vancouver :-) Maybe I can get a Federal Subsidy :-) Hey, c'mon - you guys just got a National Park :-) (well, it's close enough)
lyndon@ncc.UUCP (07/12/87)
Ok, what I was referring to was the comment made some time ago now about buying the CanukNet hardware and software from "the US UUNET site" which quite naturally got me a bit agitated. What I REALLY MEANT was, why not by the hardware/software from a Canadian vendor. And *I* think we should locate it in Edmonton as we can use the Stanley Cup as an antenna. (Oh oh...) --lyndon
fortin@iros1.UUCP (07/19/87)
In article <1490@ncc.UUCP> lyndon@ncc.UUCP writes: >And *I* think we should locate it in Edmonton as we can use the >Stanley Cup as an antenna. (Oh oh...) Yah! Actually, why don't we get the CBC to agree to let us use "Hockey Night in Canada" as a carrier signal for the distribution of news across the country? (You know, we could use the same technique they use for the hearing impaired (closed captioning?) as I am sure that they don't use that technique for hockey!) The only problem with this scheme is that it makes for slow news retransmission in the summer. Oh, of course, capital :-) (Lest I forget) Denis, fortin@cae.UUCP PS. As for using the Stanley Cup as an antenna, I don't really mind: it would probably end up in the Montreal area most of the time anyway! (but what would we do if it ever ended up in California?!?) :-)
kevin@iisat.UUCP (07/23/87)
In article <227@Mannix.iros1.UUCP>, fortin@iros1.UUCP (Denis Fortin) writes: > Yah! Actually, why don't we get the CBC to agree to let us use > "Hockey Night in Canada" as a carrier signal for the distribution > of news across the country? (You know, we could use the same > technique they use for the hearing impaired (closed captioning?) > as I am sure that they don't use that technique for hockey!) > > The only problem with this scheme is that it makes for slow news > retransmission in the summer. > > Denis, fortin@cae.UUCP No problem there ! Hockey by winter, and baseball by summer ! They are usually showing some kind of baseball game or something, and if there is a slack couple of weeks, they could always use CBC Sportsweekend... I don't think they close caption ANY sports (As long as it didn't bother broadcasts of Formula 1 racing from Europe ! :-) > PS. As for using the Stanley Cup as an antenna, I don't really > mind: it would probably end up in the Montreal area most of the > time anyway! In a way, you may be talking of something which is not all _that_ far fetched. I have a friend who's a ham radio operator (I listen to a lot of short wave stuff), and for a 100 watts or so, you can go quite far, especially if you take out the carrier signal (some of you out there may understand this), and is MUCH cheaper than Ma Bell... Would cost you for the initial equipment or so, and the electricity... What ? CRTC ? Security ? What more do you want for nothing ! :-) -- Kevin Davies International Information Service (IIS) UUCP: {seismo|utai|watmath|garfield} !dalcs!iisat!kevin ----------------------------------------
taras@utgpu.UUCP (07/26/87)
In article <227@Mannix.iros1.UUCP> fortin@iros1.UUCP (Denis Fortin) writes: # In article <1490@ncc.UUCP> lyndon@ncc.UUCP writes: # >And *I* think we should locate it in Edmonton as we can use the # >Stanley Cup as an antenna. (Oh oh...) # # Yah! Actually, why don't we get the CBC to agree to let us use # "Hockey Night in Canada" as a carrier signal for the distribution # of news across the country? (You know, we could use the same # # Denis, fortin@cae.UUCP Not really a good idea since there may be 6 different telecasts and each province seems to have its own set of commercials. One with beer, another without plus other differences. Besides you would only get news once a week.:-) btw for the serious, I should have some serious proposals to start a real discussion very soon. -- 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 (07/27/87)
Oh yeah, one other thing I learnt today, the CBC uses that same bandwidth for something called IRIS. Which is a teletex service that they were testing out. -- 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.