bass@dmsd.UUCP (07/16/86)
My proposal is simply that we create several hubs with 9600 baud modem service
and ample disk storage to provide store and forward mail service. The modems
will be connected to a buffer box with 1 to 2mb of ram storage to match
communications throughput limits at each client machine. The buffer box will
normally be transparent between the modem and system allowing normal modem
service. During preset times when the modem is idle, the buffer box will
call one of the Starhubs and stream in a news batch at full line speed, AND
login to the client system and dump the stream to the unbatcher matching client
speeds.
Current DDS AT&T nite service for such a news feed would be about $75/month
and hub service fees of less than $50/month. The buffer box will cost between
$300 and $500, the modem between $1,000 and $1,500 depending on what can be
done for a group buy. The DDS rate can be reduced maybe 50% with a group
or volume discount.
The Hub could provide inwatts service and bill-back all the charges in
one bill. A single $9,000 hub could support about 80 systems each night
and another 100 systems during the day/evening. Hub based service
could be both faster than the current backbone, more reliable, and cheaper
over all -- and remove a major bias in the cost of usenet caused by the
backbone. The total cost of usenet would be reduced as much as 70% from the
current implementation. Hubs operated as a fee based service would pay back
in about 12 months. Between 6 and 10 hubs could service most of the major
cities and surrounding area.
OR -- the hubs need not exist at all .... using the same technology with
the current backbone. Due to the higher connectivity of the current backbone
over a multiple hub arrangment, the costs will be higher than hubs,
be still significantly cheaper than current 1200/2400 DDS service.
Current DDS AT&T nite service for news costs about $360/month assuming a
2400 baud compressed news feed (plus/minus about $60). The capital investment
is a 2400 baud modem costing less than $1,000. Many sites are using 1200 baud
compressed service at twice the cost (why I don't know, since the capital
payback is about 2 months).
Normal uucp is limited to below 4800 baud average throughput due to system
timings on many machines, which limits the direct application of 9600/19.2kb
modems for uucp based service. But even still, at 4800 baud they will still
pay back over less than 6 months.
The software to implement this is about 6 man months, plus 3 man months
for the buffer box firmware and hardware.
--
John Bass (DBA:DMS Design)
DMS Design (System Design, Performance and Arch Consultants)
{dual,fortune,polyslo,hpda}!dmsd!bass (805) 541-1575henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/17/86)
> ...The capital investment > is a 2400 baud modem costing less than $1,000. Many sites are using 1200 baud > compressed service at twice the cost (why I don't know, since the capital > payback is about 2 months). It's really easy to figure out, actually: phone-bill money and capital- equipment money are not freely interconvertible in most large organizations. Oh, they are if you go high enough up the management tree... but quite often Usenet cannot stand the sort of upper-management scrutiny that would result. There is also a chicken-and-egg problem, since *your* investment does not pay back a cent until your neighbors make similar investments. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
bass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass) (07/18/86)
In article <6945@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > It's really easy to figure out, actually: phone-bill money and capital- > equipment money are not freely interconvertible in most large organizations. > Oh, they are if you go high enough up the management tree... but quite often > Usenet cannot stand the sort of upper-management scrutiny that would result. Interesting you should note this, the same problem only worse is true with Stargate .... purchase/rental of buffer box, converter, plus installation charges for cable, cable service fees, Stargate service fees, and so on ... Atlease with 9600 baud modem technology it has a dual use of increasing productivity with home/remote installations and all the other uses modems have .... Which is easier to justify???? -- 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)
> > It's really easy to figure out, actually: phone-bill money and capital- > > equipment money are not freely interconvertible in most large organizations. > > Interesting you should note this, the same problem only worse is true with > Stargate ... Quite true. It will be true of *any* scheme that offers improved service at the cost of buying equipment. But on a moderated channel like Stargate, we won't have to do it over again two years later when our 9600-baud modems are saturated and we need to upgrade to 19.2. > Atlease with 9600 baud modem technology it has a dual use of increasing > productivity with home/remote installations and all the other uses > modems have .... > > Which is easier to justify???? Neither. How many home/remote installations do you know of that have 9600 baud modems and want to talk to you that way? None, right. Although this isn't something I'm sure of, I would guess that the vast majority of the 2400-baud modems on the net were bought to help keep news under control, not because the dialup community was clamoring for them. Actually, I agree that "dual use" is a useful *excuse*. It's just that it wears thin when used for the fifth time in five years, with no end in sight. We need to control the volume, not constantly struggle to accommodate more and more and more. -- EDEC: Stupidly non-standard brain-damaged incompatible Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology proprietary protocol used. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/22/86)
A further question about Starhub: how do you plan to address the legal
issues of liability for content? Any centralized organization, be it
Stargate or Starhub, is a potential target for lawsuits. Stargate, last
I heard, plans to address this basically by being an all-moderated net.
An organization which plans to pass all traffic that comes in is going
to be paying an awful lot for liability insurance.
--
EDEC: Stupidly non-standard
brain-damaged incompatible Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
proprietary protocol used. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henryroy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (07/22/86)
In article <6970@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > Although this isn't something I'm sure of, I would guess that the vast > majority of the 2400-baud modems on the net were bought to help keep > news under control, not because the dialup community was clamoring for them. I don't know about the net as a group any more than Henry does (in fact, probably a good deal less than Henry does) but around here we bought 2400 baud modems so people could run emacs (and rogue :-)) at home and not have to take a coffee break everytime they redraw the screen. As a matter of fact, most of our uucp neighbors don't even talk 2400. Of course, 99% of our news travels via local phone calls -- that's hardly the case in most places. BTW, we've had enough trouble with 2400 baud modems over unconditioned lines, that I'm not sure I'm ready to believe the claims the 4800/9600 baud people are making. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
werner@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (07/22/86)
In article <6971@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > A further question about Starhub: how do you plan to address the legal > issues of liability for content? Any centralized organization, be it > Stargate or Starhub, is a potential target for lawsuits. Stargate, last > I heard, plans to address this basically by being an all-moderated net. > An organization which plans to pass all traffic that comes in is going > to be paying an awful lot for liability insurance. If we founded a non-profit corporation which puts a sattelite into the sky that does nothing but "echo" or "forward" transmissions radiatated at it, would that make the corporation, management, or founders liable for what gets "forwarded" ??? now what if we used "store-and-forward" technology, either in the air or on the ground ... quite honestly, from all I hear about the "legal conisderations" regarding Stargate, I'd be afraid to moderate a group there, or, at least, would feel that I'd have to "censor" a lot more than I'd really feel needs to be done at such an alternative, or on the Usenet as it currently exists. Well, you look a "gift-horse" in the mouth and you find both a bill and teeth that might snap at you ..... I still think Stargate will perform a useful service, but I'd be sad if all other communication channels should go away in the process (which I doubt). but I do believe that some form of moderating or limiting the distribution of articles unless approved for wider distribution by some form of reader-concensus (as the article gets read by more and more people) is needed. And I'm not looking for something fail-safe or unbeatable, just something that reduces the swamping of the net with improper articles. ---Werner (I'm not planning to participate actively in this discussion further, just got inspired by Henry's posting to voice a "suggestion" that someone might think worth following up to.)
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/31/86)
[legal issues of Stargate etc] Caveat: I am not a lawyer. Consult an expert before doing anything rash. Further caveat: I have no official association with Stargate. > If we founded a non-profit corporation which puts a sattelite into the > sky that does nothing but "echo" or "forward" transmissions radiatated at > it, would that make the corporation, management, or founders liable for what > gets "forwarded" ??? It depends on whether you are a "common carrier" or a "publisher". A common carrier is something like the phone company, which is definitely not responsible for what you say over the phone. A publisher is something like Newsweek, which is responsible for every word. If you are running a point-to-point communications service, you are probably a common carrier. If you are running a broadcast service, the situation is much less clear. You might or might not be. Electronic communications haven't been around long enough for this to be resolved. > now what if we used "store-and-forward" technology, either in the air or on > the ground ... This only makes the legal fog even murkier. > quite honestly, from all I hear about the "legal conisderations" regarding > Stargate, I'd be afraid to moderate a group there, or, at least, would feel > that I'd have to "censor" a lot more than I'd really feel needs to be done > at such an alternative, or on the Usenet as it currently exists... Would you be similarly reluctant to become an editor for a magazine? The same ground rules would probably apply: moderators for Stargate will probably have to be paid, and Stargate will probably have to indemnify them against legal action. Yes, being a moderator for Stargate will probably mean being more careful than for, say, a Usenet moderated group. This problem is not at all unique to Stargate. Any scheme which involves a central organization will probably have to exercise control over content. > ...I do believe that some form of moderating or limiting the distribution > of articles unless approved for wider distribution by some form of > reader-concensus (as the article gets read by more and more people) is > needed. And I'm not looking for something fail-safe or unbeatable, just > something that reduces the swamping of the net with improper articles. I agree that we need something like this. The biggest problem is the chicken-and-egg one: how to get it started? mod.sources has been very successful; mod.unix hasn't been. Wholesale conversion of the net to moderation appears to be difficult approaching impossible. Basic points of the laws as I understand them (see caveats above): Non-profit status doesn't help at all. It matters to the IRS but not to the libel lawyers. You cannot just claim "but I wasn't paying attention to what people were sending over my satellite". If you are not a common carrier, you have a legal obligation to exercise control. Claiming you are a common carrier doesn't necessarily make you one. Setting legal precedents can be unpleasant and very expensive. Being sued can be very expensive even if you win. Insurance against lawsuits is becoming hard to find and very expensive. Anybody can sue you over anything. He may not win, but he can try. Usenet escapes the problem only by having no central point to sue. -- EDEC: Stupidly non-standard brain-damaged incompatible Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology proprietary protocol used. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry