bp@pixar.UUCP (Bruce Perens) (06/22/89)
If unido is making such blatant commercial use of the usenet, why is anyone giving them a newsfeed? If North American backbone sites adhered to a policy to shut such sites down, removing the financial advangage, it would become easier for Europeans to get the laws passed to allow a U.S.-style usenet. The U.S. has had a long struggle with monopolies - but we've even managed to break up ATT, and are now left with only the U.S. Post Office (which doesn't handle phone or computer communications as they do in Europe) as an example of a monopolistic common carrier. Bruce Perens
spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) (06/23/89)
In article <5523@pixar.UUCP> bp@pixar.UUCP (Bruce Perens) writes: >The U.S. has had a long struggle with monopolies - but we've even managed >to break up ATT, and are now left with only the U.S. Post Office (which >doesn't handle phone or computer communications as they do in Europe) as >an example of a monopolistic common carrier. ... and that worked so well that ---- bzzzzzaaaaat - click -- zip - beep - -orry, that -umber is -ot in -ervi- at thi- -ime... -- spl Steve Lamont, sciViGuy EMail: spl@ncsc.org North Carolina Supercomputing Center Phone: (919) 248-1120 Box 12732/RTP, NC 27709
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (06/23/89)
Steve Lamont writes: >Bruce Perens writes: > >but we've even managed > >to break up ATT, and are now left with only the U.S. Post Office > > as an example of a monopolistic common carrier. > > ... and that worked so well that ---- bzzzzzaaaaat - click -- zip - beep - > -orry, that -umber is -ot in -ervi- at thi- -ime... Uh, Steve? That's a problem with your *local* phone company ... which in most areas is still a government-protected monopoly. Let's see some competition in *that* field. After all, cities with more than one power company have lower rates and better service. Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- "'Tis not too late to seek a newer world." -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson
wnp@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Wolf Paul) (06/23/89)
In article <5523@pixar.UUCP> bp@pixar.UUCP (Bruce Perens) writes: >If unido is making such blatant commercial use of the usenet, why is >anyone giving them a newsfeed? If North American backbone sites adhered >to a policy to shut such sites down, removing the financial advangage, >it would become easier for Europeans to get the laws passed to allow a >U.S.-style usenet. This has nothing to do with "getting laws passed" -- the actual phone charges are only part of the cost, and I am not convinced that changing the monopoly structure of the phone service would bring these costs down that much. The issue is the charges levied by the EUnet backbones, and if Daniel Karrenberg (dfk@cwi.nl) is right that UNIDO encourages small private sites to get a joint feed and redistribute among themselves (which I had not heard before), then even that can become bearable. Is this true of other national backbones, also? I still take issue with what I call blacklisting -- if I am a site in Europe, and I set up my own link to the US, I still ought to be able to send mail to users at regular EUnet sites -- not by virtue of my own (non-existent) subscription to EUnet services, but by virtue of THEIRS -- they pay to get mail through mcvax and unido, and its none of EUnet's business where that mail comes from originally. Note that I am not advocating that EUnet pass mail from one unregistered site to another unregistered site, but just between their own subscribers and ANYONE on the outside, regardless of geography. >The U.S. has had a long struggle with monopolies - but we've even managed >to break up ATT, and are now left with only the U.S. Post Office (which >doesn't handle phone or computer communications as they do in Europe) as >an example of a monopolistic common carrier. Yes, but AT&T is a private company, and the stroke of a judge's pen was all that was needed in the end to break it up. The benefits of that are questionable. However in Europe, the state monopoly on telecommunications and transportation of mail is frequently part of the national constitution and not so easy to change, especially as there are large numbers of people perfectly happy with the situation as it is. Remember that modem users and other hi-tech types constitute a minority of citizens. It will be interesting to see what if any effect the EEC's integration in 1992 will have on the telecommunications situation in Europe -- until then, even abolishing the monopolies will not necessarily bring down costs, since each European country is a much smaller market than the US, and thus economies of scale tend to make things more expensive rather than cheaper. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: {texbell, killer, dalsqnt}!dcs!wnp DOMAIN: wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us or wnp%dcs@texbell.swbt.com
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (06/24/89)
In article <4759@alvin.mcnc.org>, spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) writes about the US phone service: > ... and that worked so well that ---- bzzzzzaaaaat - click -- zip - beep - > -orry, that -umber is -ot in -ervi- at thi- -ime... Bullshit. I've lived in Austrlia and the US. My wife has lived in Canada and the US. Australia and Canada are both fairly rich countries, so I think that we have experienced as fine a phone service as anyone in the world can claim to offer. I've had it up to here with all the flames about the US phone service, the US post office, and so on. They're as good as anything I or my wife have used, and in most cases better. Now if only they'd get around to breaking up the BOCs as well... -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (06/24/89)
In article <5523@pixar.UUCP> bp@pixar.UUCP (Bruce Perens) writes:
-If unido is making such blatant commercial use of the usenet, why is
-anyone giving them a newsfeed? If North American backbone sites adhered
-to a policy to shut such sites down, removing the financial advangage,
-it would become easier for Europeans to get the laws passed to allow a
-U.S.-style usenet.
Oh, right, why didn't *I* think of that? I'm sure that if we cut off their
news feeds, all the governments of Europe would *instantly*, on bended
*knees*, divest their monopoly phone systems, invite the US carriers in
to do battle on their turf, and give out Trailblazers as door prizes...
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02146spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) (06/24/89)
In article <4706@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >Steve Lamont writes: >>Bruce Perens writes: >> >but we've even managed >> >to break up ATT, and are now left with only the U.S. Post Office >> > as an example of a monopolistic common carrier. >> >> ... and that worked so well that ---- bzzzzzaaaaat - click -- zip - beep - >> -orry, that -umber is -ot in -ervi- at thi- -ime... > >Uh, Steve? That's a problem with your *local* phone company ... >which in most areas is still a government-protected monopoly. >Let's see some competition in *that* field. After all, cities >with more than one power company have lower rates and >better service. _ / \ \ | | \ \_/ | ------ | / \ | | | / \_/ / Uh, I guess I forgot the smiley..... Sheesh! -- spl Steve Lamont, sciViGuy EMail: spl@ncsc.org North Carolina Supercomputing Center Phone: (919) 248-1120 Box 12732/RTP, NC 27709
tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) (06/25/89)
I have the perfect solution for the ruinous expense of sending a
full Usenet news feed to Europe.
They can all subscribe to IN MODERATION NETWORK!
:-) ducking
--
You may not redistribute this article for profit without written permission.
--
Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
"Truisms aren't everything." Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NETbs@unido.UUCP (Bernard Steiner) (06/26/89)
In article <5523@pixar.UUCP> bp@pixar.UUCP (Bruce Perens) writes: >If unido is making such blatant commercial use of the usenet, why is Hah ! Iff we make such a huge profit, may I ask you where it goes ? We're a _UNIVERSITY_ and basically any "profit" is used to pay for hardware, software, maintanance and (wo)manpower. Bernard #include <disclaimers/std.h>
philip@axis.fr (Philip Peake) (06/26/89)
In article <5523@pixar.UUCP>, bp@pixar.UUCP (Bruce Perens) writes: > If unido is making such blatant commercial use of the usenet, why is > anyone giving them a newsfeed? If North American backbone sites adhered > to a policy to shut such sites down, removing the financial advangage, > it would become easier for Europeans to get the laws passed to allow a > U.S.-style usenet. You havn't listened to the arguments. There is NO COMMERCIAL USE. It is simply a division of the ACTUAL COSTS. Repeated for the 100th time: USA is not EUROPE - USENET is not EUnet If you want to come here and tell 15 governments that they have got it all wrong - then do so - and best of luck ! Until then, the only way to get a USA price news feed of USENET articles is to find someone to pay your bills for you. Philip
news@orcenl.uucp (News adm'r, Bjorn Engsig) (06/26/89)
In article <5523@pixar.UUCP> bp@pixar.UUCP (Bruce Perens) writes: >it would become easier for Europeans to get the laws passed to allow a >U.S.-style usenet. I dont't feel it is appropriate to discuss if we should try to bypass any laws here; many articles have already explained how the European tele- communication network is working, and that is what our mail/news service has to be based upon. One thing we (as a mail/news community) can and do decide about is how we organize our selves, and I really don't think that very many of us would like an organization like the U.S.-style. Right now, we share the costs on a very fair base; the CPU cycles, the disk space, the whole organizations is shared, and the result is that we have a reliable network. It IS a matter of costs, all this is NOT free, and even though some US sites announce that any European (or other) site can have some of their CPU cycles, disk space and organization, please remeber that this IS paied by someone; CPU cycles, disk space and manpower are NOT free. -- Usenet administrator (Bjorn Engsig) at ORACLE Europe, Naarden, The Netherlands. news@oracle.nl, ..!mcvax!orcenl!news Phone: +31 21 59 56 411
uri@arnor.UUCP (Uri Blumenthal) (06/26/89)
From article <8442@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, by wnp@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Wolf Paul): > > Yes, but AT&T is a private company, and the stroke of a judge's pen was > all that was needed in the end to break it up. The benefits of that are > questionable. However in Europe, the state monopoly on telecommunications > Sorry, just couldn't keep silent. The benefits are questionable, you say? Do you REALLY mean that if the service we're getting now (when there's some competition) is rather poor - it would be better without ANY competition? Think again, please. Uri.
vijay@anableps.berkeley.edu (Vijay Subramaniam) (06/26/89)
If the cost of calling the US is so high, Wouldn't it be easier to get news via a machine in Europe that gets it news via the Internet ( NNTP)? Most of the Scandanavian countries are on the Internet, so would the phone call be that much to call maybe Norway from Germany and get a newsfeed? I am guessing that it would be cheaper to call Inter-europe then it would to call the USA, Am I right? Vijay
karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (06/27/89)
news@orcenl.uucp writes:
One thing we (as a mail/news community) can and do decide about is how
we organize our selves,
You are certainly free to organize your internal community in any way
you see fit. However, if certain individual sites - which just
happen, quite coincidentally, to fall within the geographic borders of
Europe - choose to set themselves up as some other sort of community,
because they feel they have found a better internal community
structure, then they constitute another distinct community. It seems
to me that EUNet has no business "blacklisting" those sites from using
their own links at their own cost for the purpose of pushing mail
around. This is apparently so because of the way that EUNet controls
(that is, restricts) registration of European UUCP sites.
I have not yet seen anyone from EUNet refute the premise that mail
traversing the uunet->mcvax link will be dropped or returned if EITHER
the source or intended destination is an unregistered site. (This is
my understanding; if it is genuinely incorrect, please enlighten me.)
By itself, this would be fine. But in combination with EUNet's
control over who gets registered, and specifically refusing to
register anyone who does not pay the EUNet fees, this constitutes a
fairly clear case of "blacklisting" such an external community.
If EUNet would allow open registration but then implemented schemes
whereby non-EUNet mail would avoid routing over EUNet-sponsored links,
the problem would be gone. They would justly retain control over what
may pass on their links, while allowing general UUCP host registration.
and I really don't think that very many of us would
like an organization like the U.S.-style.
Perhaps not very many would. "Not very many" != "none." There is no
reason for that non-empty set of sites to be blacklisted by EUNet
merely because they have an alternative and non-interfering community
structure.
It IS a matter of costs, all this is NOT free, and even though some US
sites announce that any European (or other) site can have some of their CPU
cycles, disk space and organization, please remeber that this IS paied by
someone; CPU cycles, disk space and manpower are NOT free.
I submit that, from my perspective, as a sysadmin in the US offering
such services to any European site which cares to ask, the cost is
indeed zero. I would spend almost no time writing to
hostmaster@sri-nic.arpa registering a domain; I would spend even less
time adding configuration details to my Systems, paths, and
sendmail.cf files; the disc space exists and is underutilized (nearly
100Mbytes sits largely idle); the system in question actually exists
specifically for the sake of UUCP connectivity. The incremental cost
of such new connections is indeed zero.
--Karldww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (06/27/89)
In article <5523@pixar.UUCP> bp@pixar.UUCP (Bruce Perens) writes:
#If unido is making such blatant commercial use of the usenet, why is
#anyone giving them a newsfeed?
Right on, close down all those disgusting commercial sites that charge for
news access. Starting with uunet - that would REALLY show unido where they
stand, that's where they get their feed from (via mcvax). Over commercial
lines too - mcvax even have a high speed leased line to uunet to keep the
costs down.
Usenet should be restricted to sites that don't cost anything, don't charge,
and use free home-built communications channels. Amateur radio enthusiasts
set up comms across the Atlantic long before those evil capitalist telecoms
companies put in the first transatlantic telephone cable. *They* didn't
charge, why should anyone else.
# If North American backbone sites adhered
#to a policy to shut such sites down, removing the financial advangage,
#it would become easier for Europeans to get the laws passed to allow a
#U.S.-style usenet.
Yes, that would Really Worry the Bundespost and AT&T and all the other nasty
PTT's. They get 0.00000001% of their revenue from the Eunet.
Or, to quote from the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, "How much damage would
you do to this bulldozer if I let it run right over you?" "I don't know."
"None at all."
[Just in case any really dumb readers are out there - this is :-) :-) :-) :-) ]
Regards, 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
"Do not speak of what men deserve. For we each of us deserve everything,
every luxury that was ever piled in the tombs of the dead Kings, and we each
of us deserve nothing, not a mouthfull of bread in hunger. Have we not eaten
while another starved? Will you punish us for that? Will you reward us for
the virtue of starving while others ate? No man earns punishment, no man
earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of *deserving*, of *earning*, and
you will begin to be able to think."
Odo, The Prison Letters (U.LeGuin, The Dispossessed)balzer@frambo.dec.com (Christian Balzer) (06/28/89)
OK, I guess it's time for my $0.02. I'm a CS student, part time DIGITAL employee and full time Amiga junkie. :-) Many people commented already on the high phone costs and various other aspects that make UseNet such an expensive adventure over here, so I'll spare you that. One of the many reasons I work for DEC is the fact that I can use Email and post for FREE. But that probably isn't the solution for most of my fellow German NEWS junkies. :-) I see much brighter future for the Net over here within the next 3 years, because: a) In 1992/93 during the consolidation of the European Community the Bundespost will have a tough time forbiding hardware that is legal in other parts of Europe. b) ISDN will probably reduce line costs. c) Due to the availability of a PD version of UUCP and NEWS for the Amiga (a rather popular system over here, ~400000 units sold in Germany), the potential (and actual) number of nodes is bound to be rising fast. Enough bandwith wasted for now, - <CB> -- _ _ / / | \ \ <CB> aka Christian Balzer - The Software Brewery - < < |-< > EMail: ...!decwrl!frambo.dec.com!CB -OR- CB@frambo.dec.com \ \_ |_/ / E-Net: FRAMBO::BALZER | Home-Phone: +49 6150 4151 (CET!) ------------ PMail: Im Wingertsberg 45, D-6108 Weiterstadt, F.R.G.
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (06/29/89)
>> Yes, but AT&T is a private company, and the stroke of a judge's pen was >> all that was needed in the end to break it up. The benefits of that are >> questionable. However in Europe, the state monopoly on telecommunications >Sorry, just couldn't keep silent. The benefits are questionable, you say? >Do you REALLY mean that if the service we're getting now (when there's some >competition) is rather poor - it would be better without ANY competition? >Think again, please. Well, it IS an amazing concept, but yes, it is actually possible to have better service, better quality and at the same time even lower cost when a major company doesn't have to sink millions of dollars into advertising, cost cutting gimmicks and flashy productions. Unfortunately, that situation is rare, but not impossible. In the case of U.S. long distance communications services, I'm continually amazed and appalled by how _bad_ the quality, and especially service, can be on most or even all (at times) of the ATT competitors. ATT isn't flawless either, but unlike others, they can't claim the dubious distinction of billing me hundreds of dollars for a month of non-usage, or continually "losing" my existance (and therefore threatening me for using their services illegally). How about those that hype fiber optic, and then send those fiber optic lines through rusty analog switches, or beam them to seeminly out of sync satellites? You get horrible static, but boy, is it CLEAR static...! :-) Better service after the break up? Not from the competitors, at least. Now, is there someplace better we can take this? Or will someone wake me up when sources start coming through here again? My $0.02. :-) -- ________Robert J. Granvin________ INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org ____National Computer Systems____ BITNET: rjg%sialis.mn.org@cs.umn.edu __National Information Services__ UUCP: ...amdahl!bungia!sialis!rjg "I'll just go bang my head on a wall & figure out why I abuse myself so much"
michaud@decvax.dec.com (Jeff Michaud) (06/30/89)
In article <1552bis@stl.stc.co.uk>, dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: > Right on, close down all those disgusting commercial sites that charge for > news access. Starting with uunet - that would REALLY show unido where they > stand, that's where they get their feed from (via mcvax). Over commercial > lines too - mcvax even have a high speed leased line to uunet to keep the > costs down. Since when is "uunet" a commercial site? Its non-profit last I heard. BTW, what is all this talk.* type grabage doing in the alt.sources newsgroup anyways? (and people wonder why the real source newgroups are moderatered!) -- /--------------------------------------------------------------\ |Jeff Michaud michaud@decwrl.dec.com michaud@decvax.dec.com| |DECnet-ULTRIX #include <standard/disclaimer.h> | \--------------------------------------------------------------/
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (06/30/89)
In article <3281@shlump.dec.com> michaud@decvax.dec.com (Jeff Michaud) writes: >> Right on, close down all those disgusting commercial sites that charge for >> news access. Starting with uunet... > > Since when is "uunet" a commercial site? Its non-profit last I heard. There is nothing contradictory in that; it is a non-profit corporation, like Usenix or ACM. This does not mean it doesn't charge for its services, only that it doesn't pay dividends to investors. -- NASA is to spaceflight as the | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology US government is to freedom. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
uri@arnor.UUCP (Uri Blumenthal) (06/30/89)
From article <1618@sialis.mn.org>, by rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin): > > Well, it IS an amazing concept, but yes, it is actually possible to > have better service, better quality and at the same time even lower > cost when a major company doesn't have to sink millions of dollars > into advertising, cost cutting gimmicks and flashy productions. > So you think, that if a company doesn't have to worry about their clients slipping to competitors, they'll improve quality of their service just out of kindness. And instead of putting some money in their pocket, they'll spend it on some goodies for you. Are you kidding? Or maybe you think they are dreaming about providing you with the best service, and money-making is just something they can't avoid? (:-)) And lower cost they'll provide to you just because there's no competition and they hate to take money... Fun to read such things. Uri.
zap@savage.UUCP (Zap Savage) (07/04/89)
In article <181@arnor.UUCP> uri@arnor.UUCP (Uri Blumenthal) writes: >From article <8442@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, by wnp@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Wolf Paul): >> Yes, but AT&T is a private company, and the stroke of a judge's pen was >> all that was needed in the end to break it up. The benefits of that are >> questionable. However in Europe, the state monopoly on telecommunications >Sorry, just couldn't keep silent. The benefits are questionable, you say? >Do you REALLY mean that if the service we're getting now (when there's some >competition) is rather poor - it would be better without ANY competition? >Think again, please. The service _I'm_ getting is fine. I use ATT and Sprint, almost exclusively. The service at my last job was about 70% of ATT's quality; they were using some other, maybe Allnet, I forget. I'm not an economist, legislator or competitor in the phone business. IMHO, I'm glad the competition is here but I'm sorry that they broke up ATT in the process. If that was the only way to allow the other companies to grow, ah well. ATT and affiliates, in competition with other electronics and communications companies WORLDWIDE were making great strides in electronics. The service in the areas of the US that I used a phone in were excellent. I know some places like Texas have problems with line noise, but we didn't. My point is that I don't agree that monopolies are inherently bad. ATT was as close to a benign monopoly that I've ever seen, including, of course, the U.S. government. I'm glad they used my parents' phone bills to help foot the bill for the development costs of transistors, lasers and optic fibers, in addition to the advances in network and satellite communications they created. But I still want to know why I don't have a video phone on my desk! :-) Zap ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Zap Savage | | Savage Research "Where Quality Isn't Just A Word, It's A Noun" | | "There are three possibilities: Pioneer's solar panel has turned away from | | the sun; there's a large meteor blocking transmission; or someone loaded | | Star Trek 3.2 into our video processor." | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------