teus@fs1-cg.oce.nl (Teus Hagen) (01/16/89)
The news costs in Europe, and students cannot afford news in Europe: Transport of data over an ocean costs money. The way to make news available to as many as possble readers in Europe is either sharing the (PTT) costs, or have someone fully pay for it. The last solution: nobody has stand up to do it (in the past DEC and Philips did it, thanks). So we have the first: sharing of transport costs. This is a very riscy situation: ie if someone does gets it cheaper via other routes initially, and will supply others, he will cause a snowball running of cheap intermediate news, destroy the current situation, end finally end up in the same situation of EUnet news: more costs. Sites will jump from one snowball to the other..., creating problematic situations for existing service providers in the intermediate time. So think carefully if one will try to start such connections. At this moment the costs for news articles consists of three basics: 1)US link costs (because of sharing the costs and cheap bulk connection the costs is quite low) from Us to European central node. Cost is dependent to the amount of European news subscribers. So really very low costs. 2)costs from European central node to the national backbone. Costs are rather low, as divided by national news subscribers. 3)costs from national backbone to the news subscriber. This is the main costs. What you see is that due to the large amount of subscribers costs are basically caused by the national siruation. For i2ack it means: get as many as possible subscribers hooked up to the national italian backbone! And your costs will be lower as they can be done now (do not expect that others will carry your subscription costs for a longer period!). Or do not parasitize on European news subscribers. The same rules apply for email. As currently rented lines are used for some connections (eg US-Europe). So with fixed prices, email transport costs are shared as well. I hope I've explained why I, personally will not honor such a connection request. teus hagen _______________________________ This note does not necessarily represent the position of Oce-Nederland b.v.. Therefore no liability or responsibility for whatever will be accepted.
venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) (01/20/89)
In article <1035@oce-rd1.oce.nl>, teus@fs1-cg.oce.nl (Teus Hagen) writes: > The news costs in Europe, and students cannot afford news in Europe: > Transport of data over an ocean costs money. The way to make news available > to as many as possble readers in Europe is either sharing the (PTT) costs, > or have someone fully pay for it. The last solution: nobody has stand up > to do it (in the past DEC and Philips did it, thanks). I had written a long article about costs, and the word "sharing", but i felt it would break my "armistice" with mcvax &C., so i didn't include it. Instead, i would like to ask if it is possible to get the list of costs of EUnet, along with the one for the trafic of i2unix. > So we have the first: sharing of transport costs. > This is a very riscy situation: ie if someone does gets it cheaper via > other routes initially, and will supply others, he will cause a snowball > running of cheap intermediate news, destroy the current situation, > end finally end up in the same situation of EUnet news: more costs. Whom are you talking about? I2ack is on Usenet! It is cheaper for us to have a direct link to USA than paying i2unix! We already have News. > > So think carefully if one will try to start such connections. You didn't get the main point: EUcon is a standalone network. It has gateways on Usenet and wherever we need to go. There are a bunch of EUCON systems which are also on EUnet. Just think of EUcon as EUnet for poor people, and you'll get the idea :-) . > > At this moment the costs for news articles consists of three basics: > 1)US link costs (because of sharing the costs and cheap bulk connection the costs is > quite low) from Us to European central node. quite low? i thought they were very high. > Cost is dependent to the amount of European news subscribers. So really very low costs. Again very low costs. Uhm... > 2)costs from European central node to the national backbone. > Costs are rather low, as divided by national news subscribers. Low costs again. I think we have a different concept of what " a-lot-of-money " is. > 3)costs from national backbone to the news subscriber. This is the main costs. > You SHOULD be right.. but this should be up to the node. I mean, it's me that decide how often to poll the backbone. > What you see is that due to the large amount of subscribers costs are basically > caused by the national siruation. For i2ack it means: get as many as possible > subscribers hooked up to the national italian backbone! ..but in Italy one has to pay for the single SUBSCRIPTION a lot of $$$. Thousands of $$$. This money is spent without sending or receiving a single byte. In addition, one has to pay for the backbone transmission costs, which charges 1024 bytes 0.25 $ , PLUS an yearly additional fee for News. With the same money i buy an X.25 line and go straight to US links. Finally, one has to call its backbone, which -in our case- has a wrong PAD configuration, and allows only 1200 baud phone connections. This is it. > And your costs will be lower as they can be done now (do not expect that others will > carry your subscription costs for a longer period!). Again, i am NOT asking for a news feed in europe. You missed the sense of my message. > Or do not parasitize on European news subscribers. I don't feel like a parasite. If anyone on EUnet wants to send mail to US through us, he can do it. Anyway, my previous message meant this: we are looking for new nodes, so that we can forward mail in Europe without routing through EUnet backbones. That's it. The problem seems not to be the "transatlantic" link with uunet: EUnet wants money also for sending within its nodes. Also if nodes are willing to get the mail, to forward it etc., backbones stop it. Finally, i would like to point out that i2ack is just a node. Our network is called Sublink, and actually has half the number of nodes i2unix has. If EUnet would allow our mail coming from uunet to reach europe (as for a common bunch of nodes on Usenet), we would offer exactly the same service as i2unix, for FREE. We are not supported by anyone: if we got the money i2unix asks his nodes, i would buy a Sperry 5050 too. Greetings, Paolo -- Paolo Ventafridda Via Ottoboni 6,20148 Milano - Italy Tel.+392-4032432 EUnet:blue@altger eucon:venta@i2ack BANG:{pyramid,altger,tmpmbx}!i2ack!venta # If you mail me on i2ack, use pyramid path; i'm on eunet's lock-list..(sic) #
mangler@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Don Speck) (01/22/89)
In article <102@i2ack.UUCP>, venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) writes: > In addition, one has to pay for the backbone transmission costs, which > charges 1024 bytes 0.25 $ , PLUS an yearly additional fee for News. If that's U.S. dollars, that's a HUNDRED times the average cost per kilobyte that Brian Reid estimates in his monthly readership summaries. A full newsfeed would cost over $1000 per day at those rates! If this is accurate: Why does Eunet have to cost so much? Sysadmins on Eunet must have thought up some really impressive justifications for something that costs this much. I can't justify even our far lower costs, leaving me little choice but to cut back again and again, so I would really like to know the magic words that you say to your management.
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (01/23/89)
In article <102@i2ack.UUCP>, venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) writes: > In addition, one has to pay for the backbone transmission costs, which > charges 1024 bytes 0.25 $ , PLUS an yearly additional fee for News. In article <9198@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> mangler@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Don Speck) writes: >If that's U.S. dollars, that's a HUNDRED times the average cost per >kilobyte that Brian Reid estimates in his monthly readership summaries. > >If this is accurate: Why does Eunet have to cost so much? The (typical) cost that EUNet must pay to their X.25 provider is approximately $0.19 per kilobyte (actually $12 per kilosegment), plus $12/hour connect time, plus monthly service fees that run from $500 to $1500 per month. Work it out, and you'll find EUNet isn't exactly raking in the bucks. These links are also fairly slow, which limits traffic in a practical sense. Generally, dialup is not an effective alternative (more expensive and less reliable), and Trail- Blazers aren't legal. And you wonder why the Europeans complain about Dinnette-For-Sale ads? The big problem in Europe isn't a monopolistic EUNet; it's monopolistic and paranoid PTTs (Post-Telephone-Telegraph). <csg>
w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (01/23/89)
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) wrote: [EUNet X.25 costs are ~$0.19/K + $12/hr + $500-$1500/mo; dialup can't compete becasue Trailblazers are illegal.] > And you wonder why the Europeans complain about Dinnette-For-Sale ads? > > The big problem in Europe isn't a monopolistic EUNet; it's monopolistic and > paranoid PTTs (Post-Telephone-Telegraph). Jesus! And a Trailblazer gets well over 1K/sec, at least 10 times cheaper, even international... the answer, it now seems, is to use them anyway, as EUCon is doing. Now I'm amazed Usenet survives at all. (As to the EUCon/EUNet dispute, the obvious end result will be someone in the U.S. setting up a forwarder that hides the origin of mail beyond what EUNet can automatically filter. This could develop into a technical war, as EUNet puts that site on its hit list and it starts faking headers. I wish a solution that doesn't involve a transatlantic detour could be found.) Could someone tell the world about the legality of various modems in Europe? I remember hearing about France requiring modems to apologise if they call a human. It won't stop me from bringing and using my Trailblazer, but it would be nice to know how quiet I have to keep. -- -Colin (uunet!microsof!w-colinp)
jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) (01/24/89)
In article <56046@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > >The (typical) cost that EUNet must pay to their X.25 provider is approximately [deleted] >not an effective alternative (more expensive and less reliable), and Trail- >Blazers aren't legal. Stupid question. Why are trailblazers not legal in Europe? JB -- Jonathan Bayer Beware: The light at the end of the Intelligent Software Products, Inc. tunnel may be an oncoming dragon 19 Virginia Ave. ...uunet!ispi!jbayer Rockville Centre, NY 11570 (516) 766-2867 jbayer@ispi
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/24/89)
In article <9198@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> mangler@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Don Speck) writes: >If this is accurate: Why does Eunet have to cost so much? Don't forget that in Europe, instead of multiple phone companies with a more-or-less adversary relationship to the government, there is one phone company per country and it's *part* of the government, usually part of (shudder) the Post Office. How much would Usenet cost if the US and Canadian Post Offices ran the North American phone system? -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (01/24/89)
In article <56046@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: >[regarding the cost of trans-Atlantic data transfer] >Generally, dialup is >not an effective alternative (more expensive and less reliable), and Trail- >Blazers aren't legal. Not in every country, but so what? I am quite sure that the UK allows Telebits - there may be others. Put the European gateway in a county that allows Trailblazers, and it can feed the rest of the continent at whatever speed each country will allow. Discussions in comp.dcom.modems suggest that Telebit-speed transmission can be more cost effective than even cheap X.25 setups like PC Pursuit. If this can be used to carry data between Europe and America more cheaply, isn't is worth at least a trial? _____________________________________________________________________________ Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan "And, in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (01/24/89)
In article <332@microsoft.UUCP> w-colinp@microsoft.uucp (Colin Plumb) writes: >csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) wrote: >... >Could someone tell the world about the legality of various modems in >Europe? I remember hearing about France requiring modems to apologise >if they call a human. It won't stop me from bringing and using my >Trailblazer, but it would be nice to know how quiet I have to keep. I don't know about all of Europe, but as far as monopolizing goes Belgium is certainly in the top. For using modems on the telephone net the rule is very simple: it is allowed if the modem are "certified" by the phone company. The catch is that there are no certified modems for sale... The only certified modems are the ones you can rent from the phone company at a very high monthly rate (considering the cost of the modems). Recently though some V21 and V22 modems have become certified. So 300 baud and 1200/75 baud is now possible. For the X-25 the situation is different, mainly because the phone company is unable to supply the hardware. So certified X-25 hardware exists, but the rates for using X-25 are very high. Either way you loose, unless you illegally install modems (trailblazer or other) that work just fine and are legal and cause no problems in the US. All in all a very sad situation over there. Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------ |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | ------------------------------------------------------
venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) (01/24/89)
In article <56046@pyramid.pyramid.com>, csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > > The big problem in Europe isn't a monopolistic EUNet; it's monopolistic and > paranoid PTTs (Post-Telephone-Telegraph). > You Got It. We are about 10 years below U.S. But some prices here for UUCP are simply ridicolous. If i had to send a 100K file to - say - a friend in Germany, i have better call it by phone and do a mere file transfer: i will pay 30% of i2unix charge! Now, here we go: HOW TO REDUCE COSTS ON EUNET (Part I) ---------------------------------------- 1 - A Sig-Daemon on each backbone reads each message and takes off signatures, spare headers etc. 2 - The From: is irrelevant. Use your fantasy to figure out who wrote the mail. 3 - The To: is a *real *waste of bytes. If the message came to you, it's obvious that YOU were the addressed, unless your backbone is running sendmail. 4 - Poor networks, such as i2unix, will also cut the Date: line. 5 - Ever hos mus remov th las lette of eac wor. Usene peopl is cleve enoug t understan it all th sam . 6 - Remove all spaces between words! Spaces cost Money and contain no information! 7 - This is my favourite: one message out of "x" ("x" being random-generated) is simply DELETED on the backbone, instead of being spooled. No one will ever notice that. 8 - Strong usage of abbreviations. For instance, instead of writing: "Hi! I saw your posting in the Newsgroup and..." "H!I s y p i t N a .." If you can't read it as well, then you have no imagination. Here is how a message on EUnet-2 would look like. H!Isypotnaiwtamshatc. Dyiip? Iswwastlsrqjhg,ap;qw. G, P Greets to everybody. Oops: Gte P.V. -- Paolo Ventafridda Via Ottoboni 6,20148 Milano - Italy Tel.+392-4032432 EUnet:blue@altger EUcon:venta@i2ack BANG:{pyramid,altger,tmpmbx}!i2ack!venta # This signature on i2unix costs 70 Lire (240 bytes); a phone call costs 80 L.#
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (01/25/89)
In article <424@ispi.UUCP> jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) writes: > > Stupid question. Why are trailblazers not legal in Europe? Note that I was excessively generalizing. At least the UK, Belgium, and Italy do allow TrailBlazers. And they are lots cheaper than any X.25 service. Most European countries have a single government-owned body that operates the post office, the telephone, and all public datacomm services. These are called "Post Telephone Telegraph" authorities, or PTTs. They have very strict regula- tions about what you can connect to their wires, very similar to the situation with Bell Telephone back in the late 60's. (Back then, a brilliant genius got around the problem by inventing the acoustic coupler. But you can't do auto- answer that way.) Many of those PTTs only recently began certifying V.22bis and V.26ter modems. It will take awhile to certify the TrailBlazer, which is not CCITT standard. (Good old familiar Bell 212A modems are not legal on many PTTs.) <csg>
mkirk@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk (Martin Kirk,,,) (01/25/89)
From article <332@microsoft.UUCP>, by w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb): > > Could someone tell the world about the legality of various modems in > Europe? I remember hearing about France requiring modems to apologise > if they call a human. It won't stop me from bringing and using my > Trailblazer, but it would be nice to know how quiet I have to keep. TrailBlazers are legit in the UK. We use them to contact US sites (where good old 1200 modems won't work anyway due to phone network incompatibilities). In order to be legal I understand they have to have a country-specific line card fitted. (Mind you, although they are legal they are also expensive. Well, you can't win them all). Martin Kirk ========================================================================= E-Mail: MKirk@axion.bt.co.uk (...mcvax!ukc!axion!mkirk) Organisation: British Telecom Research Laboratories (RT3134) Snail Mail: BTRL, Rm 23A B68, Martlesham Heath, IPSWICH IP5 7RE, UK Telephone: +44 473 642518 Quote: "Life is hard, and then you die.........." =========================================================================
steinar@fdmetd.uucp (Steinar Overbeck Cook) (01/25/89)
In article <8820@alice.UUCP>, debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) writes: > In article <332@microsoft.UUCP> w-colinp@microsoft.uucp (Colin Plumb) writes: > >csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) wrote: > >... > >Could someone tell the world about the legality of various modems in > >Europe? I remember hearing about France requiring modems to apologise > >if they call a human. It won't stop me from bringing and using my > >Trailblazer, but it would be nice to know how quiet I have to keep. > > For using modems on the telephone net the rule is very simple: it is allowed > if the modem are "certified" by the phone company. > The catch is that there are no certified modems for sale... In Norway there are a lot of modems for sale ranging from 300 to 2400 baud. The Norwegian PTT can sell you smart modems using either the Hayes standard or the CCITT standard. > The only certified modems are the ones you can rent from the phone company > at a very high monthly rate (considering the cost of the modems). No longer true in Norway, any company can sell you a modem. Yes, you can rent modems if you wish to do so. > > Recently though some V21 and V22 modems have become certified. So 300 baud > and 1200/75 baud is now possible. and 2400. > > For the X-25 the situation is different, mainly because the phone company > is unable to supply the hardware. So certified X-25 hardware exists, but the > rates for using X-25 are very high. X.25 is widely used in Norway, my company has 17.000 terminals hooked up by SNA across X.25. The rates are quite reasonable, well this depends on what you compare it with of course. > > Either way you loose, unless you illegally install modems (trailblazer or > other) that work just fine and are legal and cause no problems in the US. > Trailblazers will work in Norway as well. > All in all a very sad situation over there. > Not true!, I think you should come "over here" and have a look for your self :-) :-) ! ----------- Steinar Overbeck Cook Fellesdata a.s P.O. Box 248 0212 OSLO 2 NORWAY E-mail : ...!mcvax!ndosl!fdmetd!steinar or steinar@fdmetd.uucp
cld@altger.UUCP (Claus L. Duerr) (01/26/89)
In article <424@ispi.UUCP> jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) writes: > Stupid question. Why are trailblazers not legal in Europe? most european state-controlled telephon companies are monopolists. so they can make there own rules. and as they want to sell there own modems (slow,not hayes-compatible commands,expensive) they try to keep out other modems form the market. the way they manage that is quite simple: 1. modems must have a ZZF-number (here in germany), otherwise it's illegal to use them. but to get a zzf-number for his modems, the manufactures have to pay high fees for the technical tests made by the telephon companies. 2. there are strict conditions for the technical abilities of the modems. if the modem doesn't fulfil the conditions: no zzf number ... finally: trailblazers have no zzf number. and if they get on in the next 20 year they'll cost about two or three times more than in the usa. so no1 can afford them. nice, isn't it ? :-( claus -- | Claus L. Duerr | "Some programmers have been known to howl at full .. | | Munich | .. moons." - "Only at full moons ?!" | | West-Germany |------------------------------------------------------| | UUCP: ..mcvax!unido!altger!cld SUB: ..{altger,doitcr,chiron}!dicon!cld |
Markino@deejay.UUCP (Marco Salsa) (01/26/89)
In article <56296@pyramid.pyramid.com>, csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > Note that I was excessively generalizing. At least the UK, Belgium, and Italy > do allow TrailBlazers. And they are lots cheaper than any X.25 service. Sorry... but in Italy Trailblazer Modems are NOT allowed! Marco 'Markino' Salsa. UUCP: Markino@deejay ...!pyramid!deejay!Markino Markino@G-SPOT ...!pyramid!deejay!G-SPOT!Markino
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (01/26/89)
In article <483@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >Discussions in comp.dcom.modems suggest that Telebit-speed transmission >can be more cost effective than even cheap X.25 setups like PC Pursuit. >If this can be used to carry data between Europe and America more cheaply, >isn't is worth at least a trial? Actually, EUNet is investigating a number of strategies to reduce costs, both within Europe and between Europe and the rest of the world. I know very little about it, although certainly TrailBlazers are one of the items on the table. Yes, TrailBlazers between any two points in known space are almost always both cheaper and faster than X.25, albiet nowhere near as reliable. It will be interesting to see how eucon's costs *really* work out. I suspect not all the different from EUNet. My only real gripe with EUNet is don't think they have a billing strategy that fairly considers sites with differing usage patterns. Small sites tend to have disproportionately large bills. I much prefer the ACSNet implementation, where sites essentially pay their own full end-to-end costs. (Yes yes Robert, I know that's not quite right, but close enough for the current discussion. I think ACSNet billing is more equitable than EUNet billing.) <csg>
clewis@ecicrl.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (01/27/89)
Regarding people asking about the legality of various modems in Europe.
People have to remember that each country usually has its own electrical
codes and standards. The reason why a particular modem isn't legal in
some country but is legal in others often has nothing to do with
"monopolistic" PTT's per-se. It could be a safety requirement. It
could also be that North American style modems simply wouldn't work there
even if they were legal!
For example, there is a standard dictating how much electrical isolation
must be provided in the DAA (the thing that connects the modem to the
telephone line). In the US, I think it's around 1,000 volts. In Canada
it's slightly higher. In Britain it's four times that.
Most modems made in North America don't meet the British standards in
this respect and are illegal there. There are even a few modems made in the
US which aren't (strictly speaking) legal in Canada.
Or, the telephone system is working on different impedances - the modem
would not only not work, but could also short half the network out.
Or it's digital.
Or requires different filtration.
And so on.
Some modem manufacturers meet other country's standards. Other
manufacturers make different versions for foreign countries. Many
manufacturers think "all the world's american" and don't think that
the market for foreign-standard-conforming equipment is big enough.
And some countries insist on PTT supplied devices. Sigh. Fortunately
ours deregulated in that respect at least 15 years ago. Also fortunately,
since we're the US's biggest trading partner and our codes aren't all that much
tougher, most manufacturers worth caring about in the USA meet CSA
standards too. Don't forget that there's one hell of a lot of stuff
manufactured in the Far East that's illegal just about everywhere...
I wouldn't blindly assume that restrictions on modems are due to monopoly.
Nor are the standards themselves - each country has different tradeoffs on
what is a justifiable risk, and are often working under different environments
(eg: 240V mains in Britain). Our CSA is tougher than US UL. BTT (Britain)
is overall much tougher than CSA. Etc.
--
Chris Lewis, Markham, Ontario, Canada
{uunet!attcan,utgpu,yunexus,utzoo}!lsuc!ecicrl!clewis
Ferret Mailing list: ...!lsuc!gate!eci386!ferret-request
(or lsuc!gate!eci386!clewis or lsuc!clewis)news@oresoft.uu.net (Randy Bush) (01/27/89)
In article <56046@pyramid.pyramid.com> Carl S. Gutekunst writes: >These links are also fairly slow, which limits traffic in a practical sense. Interestingly, FidoNet (for which I run the netmail equialent of uunet) uses the ackless Zmodem streaming protocol, which is somewhat more efficient over X.25 links than uucp-g. Originally, FidoNet was XModem, which was abyssmal; but, as the costs were coming out of individuals' pockets, the fix was quick. >Generally, dialup is not an effective alternative (more expensive and less >reliable), and TrailBlazers aren't legal. We have found dialup to NL or CH (at 2400 or PEP) to be as reliable as X.25, but, having no big corporate support, must use dial-up X.28 to get to X.25. Telebits are approved in many European countries and in Australia. FidoNet uses Telebits (or Telebit clones such as Ventel's) quite heavily for overseas as well as intra-continental links. BTW, FidoNet is seriously testing the new lower-cost symmetric V.32s, as we are not addicted to the g-spoofing, and have a true full-duplex protocol (Janus) available which makes the puppies really scream. I am not in any way saying that FidoNet is better (or worse) than USENET. I use both, and, in fact, gate between them. Just trying to give some perspective from a net that uses different technology. -- {mcvax!uunet,tektronix,reed,sun!nosun}!oresoft!news (Randy Bush)
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (01/27/89)
In article <1989Jan23.183420.7803@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: #In article <9198@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> (Don Speck) writes: #>If this is accurate: Why does Eunet have to cost so much? It doesn't, at least not here. We have to pay for comms and our share of the gateway's costs, plus the cost of all mail sent OR received over the Atlantic, but I think we get very good value for money from the UK and European gateways (ukc and mcvax). I think the i2ack problem is that the Italian gateway i2unix that he would have used if he were not 'independant' wanted to make very high charges (maybe they don't have many users, so their costs per user are very high? So they don't have many users...? I don't know why really, this is just a guess). I understand that there are THREE sites in Italy which want to be considered the Italian Gateway, and that all three claim the right to the .it domain. I can believe that - it's typical Italy! Italy is a lovely place, good food, nice people, but it's also DIFFERENT in ways that can really confuse the rest of us! #Don't forget that in Europe, instead of multiple phone companies with #a more-or-less adversary relationship to the government, there is one #phone company per country and it's *part* of the government, usually #part of (shudder) the Post Office. Wrong. When were you last in Europe, Henry? It ain't like that any more. (Actually it never was in Italy - they have dozens of 'phone companies there, though most are very small and local). You have to remember that Europe consists of lots of seperate countries, that are all DIFFERENT. Not so separate as they used to be, but still DIFFERENT. In Germany telecoms is still run by the Bundespost, and similarly the PTT's still rule in some other countries, but the general trend is liberalisation of the telecomms market (yes, it will even happen in Germany). Here in the UK there are three telecoms operating companies, only one of which is government owned, and that by LOCAL government: the Hull City Corporation, BT and Mercury. None is connected with the postal service any more - BT used to be, but is now a private company - my wife even has shares in it. Mercury was set up to compete with BT, which has had a very good effect on BT, it removed the complacency it had when it was still part of the state-run Royal Mail. At present there is still government control in the form of licencing, and no more operating companies will be licenced to operate at present, but it is expected that in the future lots more will be. Hull City Corporation? Not many people know this, but when the telephone monopoly of the Post Office was set up, Hull was allowed to continue to run its own telephone system as a sort of comparison with BT, but only within the city area (BT got the long distance traffic, and had to carry it at reasonable rates). By all accounts the citizens of Hull got a good deal, their phone charges are lower than BT or Mercury and the service is supposed to be good too. So can you use a Trailblazer in Europe? Depends on which country you are in. I think they are legal here now (UK), they aren't in Germany, and I doubt anyone cares in Italy. And the rules will be different yet again in each European country. You don't think that makes sense? Probably not, but that's the way it is. Do you have the same laws in Canada, USA and Mexico? Of course not. Yet they are all part of America. At this site we use PSS (X.25), for which the transmission rates are not too bad (about 50 cents US per MByte for UK traffic I think), however the monthly rental is high. Academic sites are on a network called Janet, which doesn't charge by usage, so they are OK. Smaller companies and the few private 'sites' mostly use modems over 'phone lines, either directly or through a dial-in PSS pad. We get charged for local calls here, though you can get a 'night line' which, for an extra rental, allows free local calls after midnight. So our transmission costs are on average higher than much of the USA with their free local calls in many areas. What's this got to do with Eunet vs. Eucon? Not much, I admit, but I wanted to clear up some misunderstandings about side issues others had raised. In most of Europe, we haven't even noticed the existance of Eucon. As far as I know it is an Italian problem, though because traffic to America etc. goes via other European backbone sites, they are involved too. We do have a 'pay up or do without' rule over here, which is why you can occasionally have problems with mail bouncing if you use an address that the gateway thinks is not a registered site. That's because (except for the Universities) there is no government or large commercial benefactor to pay for large parts of the net - I believe you are luckier in that respect! So if a site doesn't want to pay, and makes it's own arrangements to set up it's own net, good luck to it, but it should not expect the service that it will not pay for. I do think it's sad if a (very small) group of European sites do this, though, as it causes confusion all round. It would be better if they would make their own links into the Eunet too, and pay their share - I'm sure they could find a more reasonable feed if they tried, even if perhaps not in Italy. Having written the above, I realise that as I'm writing from the point of view of a commercial site, what is reasonable to us may look very different to a private network user siting at his home computer. There are two ways to get network service on your own PC or whatever - link to a friendly corporate site as a node within their net, or link to a public access system. In either case it should be possible to use the net without having to pay the sort of charges a large multiuser site pays. But if you can't find such a site locally, life can be difficult. I notice our Italian friend uses an account (blue) at altger (a German site on the EUnet), so presumably he cannot find an Italian public access site. Perhaps what he should really do is set one up, and get enough users to spread those high connection charges, rather than try and start a new net, bringing confusion to both Europe and America. However, anyone who actually wants to set up their own net, with all the problems that brings, has the right to go ahead and even cause confusion if they really want to. P.S. Actually I am sitting at home at present typing at a home computer, but as my link is straight into the net of the company I work for that does not make me a private user. -- Regards, "Are you sure YOUR password won't appear in RTM's next list?" David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW
teus@fs1-cg.oce.nl (Teus Hagen) (01/27/89)
Some day a friend of me in the US made it possible for me to ship news articles via a phone connection (the only possibility at that time). So we got news cheap in Europe. Till his boss discovered the reason for his big phone bill. He got fired. And news was not that cheap anymore. In article <56529@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > >Actually, EUNet is investigating a number of strategies to reduce costs, both >within Europe and between Europe and the rest of the world. I know very little >about it, although certainly TrailBlazers are one of the items on the table. Yes they are. In some countries they are formally approved, and they are used there. In some they are not (eg Swiss, Germany, ..). I know there is substancial work done to lower costs (remember that costs are related to the amount of data transported, which has been increased enormously the latter years). So decission are taken if it is cost effective, to have leased lines, to buy and install specialized equipement. This cost money. For which you are not sure that the next year other and better technics will replace it without paying back the investment costs of earlier hardware. > >It will be interesting to see how eucon's costs *really* work out. I suspect >not all the different from EUNet. My only real gripe with EUNet is don't think >they have a billing strategy that fairly considers sites with differing usage >patterns. Small sites tend to have disproportionately large bills. I much >prefer the ACSNet implementation, where sites essentially pay their own full >end-to-end costs. (Yes yes Robert, I know that's not quite right, but close >enough for the current discussion. I think ACSNet billing is more equitable >than EUNet billing.) The accounting scheme which is used by EUnet is still under discussion. Their are some drawbacks. The current scheme is very simple, but does not take into account small sites and the profit part of it. These type of items are hard. But if one has some good ideas? Please. Hopefully it is clear that quite some thinking is needed before you act here. It is just too easy to critize it without giving good workable alternatives. I hope Paolo will find some good alternatives to drop the costs. I can understand EUnet that they refuse to pay costs of someone else. That is clearly the reason why the refuse to transport Eucon traffic. Till so far it is better to wait for the proposals of Paolo. teus hagen _______________________________ This note does not necessarily represent the position of Oce-Nederland b.v.. Therefore no liability or responsibility for whatever will be accepted.
poole@forty2.UUCP (Simon Poole) (01/27/89)
In article <424@ispi.UUCP> jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) writes: ........ > > Stupid question. Why are trailblazers not legal in Europe? > ........ This naturally depends on which country you live in Europe, typically equipment that is connected directly to the telephone network has to be tested and certified by the PTT of you country (and this generally means it has to conform to CCITT standards). In Switzerland, up to about a year or two ago, the only way to get a legal modem was to rent or buy one from the PTT (cost for a 1200 Baud modem without a dialing facility was ~1000 SFr. (~$600) plus a monthly payement). Anyway, besides the problem of getting a modem, in Switzerland it's actually illegal to carry third-party mail if you are not the PTT (not that I know of anybody been taken to court for transferring UUCP mail), this may be a problem in other countries too. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP: ...mcvax!cernvax!forty2!poole Simon Poole BITNET: K538915@CZHRZU1A ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
prc@maxim.ERBE.SE (Robert Claeson) (01/29/89)
In article <56296@pyramid.pyramid.com>, csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > Note that I was excessively generalizing. At least the UK, Belgium, and Italy > do allow TrailBlazers. So do Sweden. > And they are lots cheaper than any X.25 service. Over what distances? Is a trans-atlantic (Europe <-> U.S.A.) dialup TrailBlazer connection cheaper than X.25? -- Robert Claeson, ERBE DATA AB, P.O. Box 77, S-175 22 Jarfalla, Sweden "No problems." -- Alf Tel: +46 758-202 50 EUnet: rclaeson@ERBE.SE uucp: uunet!erbe.se!rclaeson Fax: +46 758-197 20 Internet: rclaeson@ERBE.SE BITNET: rclaeson@ERBE.SE
venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) (01/30/89)
In article <967@acer.stl.stc.co.uk>, dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: > In article <1989Jan23.183420.7803@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > I think the i2ack problem is > that the Italian gateway i2unix that he would have used if he were not > 'independant' wanted to make very high charges (maybe they don't have > many users, so their costs per user are very high? So they don't have > many users...? I don't know why really, this is just a guess). They don't have users nor sites. Have a look at the map and try calling the #E people, like i did. Actually, the .it domain is a dozen of systems. Many of them, cannot call X.25 (if they call through X.28, i2unix's pad won't work - its buggy); so they call through phone line. I2unix has 2 phone port, one of which is a 2400 baud line. A friend of us - EUnet registered on i2unix - told us he simply cant poll i2unix because line is always busy! Anyway, a long distance call to i2unix is just the same as calling abroad. In November i2unix proposed to the i2net community to buy Trailbalzer modems. Since not everybody agreed (they *cost money), still they go at 2400. > > I understand that there are THREE sites in Italy which want to be considered > the Italian Gateway, and that all three claim the right to the .it domain. really, who's the third? don't tell me its the OLD italian backbone (delphi)! I am curious on this, and anyway, the problem of .it domain is a real one. Let's try thinking in these terms: if we (sublink) want to be registered on Usenet as legitimate italian network, what domain should we apply for? > I can believe that - it's typical Italy! Italy is a lovely place, good food, > nice people, but it's also DIFFERENT in ways that can really confuse the rest > of us! (thanks for food etc.) - but we are not confusing anyone: until now, i didn't send any map to rutgers, and i won't until we'll be ready to. We are all discussing in news.sysadmin, and i believe this is the best place to get opinions, suggestions etc. BEFORE doing anything. > (Actually it never was in Italy - they have dozens of 'phone companies there, > though most are very small and local). Uhm. The Only Phone Company here is SIP (aaargh). No Other Phone Companies. > So can you use a Trailblazer in Europe? Depends on which country you are > in. I think they are legal here now (UK), they aren't in Germany, and I > doubt anyone cares in Italy. Well, in a big city like Rome usually you wait for 1 year to get your own phone (at home). SIP is working quite hard right now, i understand they are trying their best, but i think for too much time they sat looking around and talking of the future.. > In most of Europe, we haven't even noticed the existance of > Eucon. As far as I know it is an Italian problem, though because traffic > to America etc. goes via other European backbone sites, they are involved too. Eucon is a recent thing. But if you talk about Italy, use < Sublink >. > I do think it's sad if a (very small) group of European > sites do this, though, as it causes confusion all round. It would be better > if they would make their own links into the Eunet too, and pay their share - > I'm sure they could find a more reasonable feed if they tried, even if > perhaps not in Italy. HEY I TRIED THAT. I CALLED UNIDO ASKING FOR AN ACCESS. AND MCVAX SAID THAT UNTIL I2UNIX SAYS "OK" WE ARE LOCKED TO THE ITALIAN BACKBONE. > our Italian friend uses an account (blue) at altger (a German site on the > EUnet), so presumably he cannot find an Italian public access site. SUBLINK offers public access sites for free. No other public accesses are available in italy. And i tell you, there's a *lot of people which really enjoyed getting a Usenet address. > Perhaps what he should really do is set one up, and get enough users > to spread those high connection charges, rather than try and start a > new net, bringing confusion to both Europe and America. NO. Until we'll get a subscription to i2unix WITHOUT paying those RIDICOLOUS yearly 6000+$ we won't EVER register EUnet. Do you realize that - aside the subscription - one has to pay for: 1) it's own transmission costs. And calling i2unix is a LONG distance call. And at 2400 like that, getting news costs too much. 2) it's mail trafic (0.25$ for 1024 bytes). This kind of costs is fine for big companies or for winners B.F.B.P.A. As i2unix declared: " We are not interested in supporting small sites ". That's it. SUBLINK is made of small sites, and as soon as we reach the needed number, we'll start asking for our own domain, you bet it. -- Paolo Ventafridda Via Ottoboni 6,20148 Milano - Italy Tel.+392-4032432 EUnet:blue@altger EUcon:venta@i2ack BANG:{pyramid,altger,tmpmbx}!i2ack!venta SUBLINK Maps & Network management , Italy \/ "Please don't shoot the Operator"
wisner@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bill Wisner) (02/01/89)
The CNUCE Istituto del CNR in Pisa is directly connected to the Internet.
People there are responsible for the .IT (Italy) domain. Here's the person
to contact in order to join the domain.
Administrative Contact:
Trumpy, Stefano (ST38) TRUMPY@CNUCE-VM.ARPA
+39 50-593216
Since the Internet is generally cheaper than transatlantic phone calls, a
mail connection between i2ack and CNUCE might prove useful. The connection
seems stable, too.wisner@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bill Wisner) (02/01/89)
I was curious to see who CNUCE was connected to on the Internet. Turns out they're on the same Atlantic satellite link that connects University College London.
stefan@mikros.systemware.de (Stefan Stapelberg) (02/04/89)
In article <967@acer.stl.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: >So can you use a Trailblazer in Europe? Depends on which country you are >in. I think they are legal here now (UK), they aren't in Germany, and I TrailBlazers are legal in Germany for leased lines. They will become legal for use on the public telephone network this year. The TB will have a ZZF number (this means, the TB has to be certified by the Bundespost). When we have the common market in Europe, we even may connect modems without a ZZF number to the phone lines. Therefore, the TB will not be the only legal high-speed modem in Germany. Stefan