aliza@c3pe.UUCP (Aliza R. Panitz (AlmostLady)) (09/06/88)
PLEASE NOTE: The article I am quoting came from (eek!) talk.bizarre and alt.flame. The point it was raising, and which I am emphasizing, is (purportedly :-> ) a bit more serious. I have directed followups to news.admin. If your followup belongs elsewhere, please edit the [fg]roups and followup lines. In article <6253@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <5700@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> dev.null writes: >>I vote we boycott ANYTHING to/from Portal until that sys admin >>starts controlling what comes out of there. > >Meybe we could figure out how many phone lines portal has, and >all take turns hogging them so none of their regular users >can log on. > >On a more serious side, it's a new trend in USENETness. This is not >some company supporting USENET as a sideline, this is their >business. One of their feeds, UUNET feeds them as a business. >If a company or Uni[versity] gets annoyed at one of their (l)users, >they just ``desupport'' them. Now that these bozos are paying >customers, the dark side of this arrangement is they don't have >the kind fof freedom to do what they want about rabid low grade >morons like these. They're *customers*. > >Portal and uunet. The whores of the NET. Take a look at the monthly statistics. Three of the highest volume systems are "pay uucp" arrangements - portal.cup.com, dasys (a.k.a. Electric Cat) and killer. The demographic load profile of Usenet and news changes considerably when a signifigant portion is generated by people whose primary use of the machines is for news and mail. Maybe this is something to consider in discussions of the future of the net. (This is the first time I've seen the issue raised in News, but it's been on my mind for a while) -- - Aliza (AlmostLady) (decuac.dec.com!c3pe!aliza or backbone!decuac!c3pe!aliza) It's football season!!! I can read the sports page again!!!
rissa@chinet.UUCP (Patricia O Tuama) (09/07/88)
In article <3358@c3pe.UUCP> aliza@c3pe.UUCP (Aliza R. Panitz (AlmostLady)) writes: >Take a look at the monthly statistics. Three of the highest volume systems >are "pay uucp" arrangements - portal.cup.com, dasys (a.k.a. Electric Cat) >and killer. > >The demographic load profile of Usenet and news changes considerably when >a signifigant portion is generated by people whose primary use of the >machines is for news and mail. > >Maybe this is something to consider in discussions of the future of the net. >(This is the first time I've seen the issue raised in News, but it's been >on my mind for a while) Well, usually when this issue is brought up the focus is on public access machines in general regardless of whether they charge or not, the idea being that netters from these sites are somehow polluting the otherwise pristine waters of Usenet. Now obviously Richard is not going to condemn PA sites in general, so to make his point about Portal he has chosen to dump on PA machines that charge fees as though somehow that makes them different from PA sites that do not. There simply isn't any proof that PA netters as a group are any worse or any better than netters who have access through their employment or through their universities. Furthermore, many of us first became acquainted with the net through our jobs or schools, then gave up that access when we left our employers or graduated and now we are simply interested in maintaining contact with the Usenet community. Passing judgment on the worth of netters or sites based on whether or not they are public access is extremely short-sighted and simplistic. There are plenty of people posting from industrial or university sites who are complete jerks, who waste net.resources and who contribute vir- tually nothing to Usenet as a whole. And since PA sites only account for about 5% of all postings, I think you could safely say that there are more jerks writing from non-PA sites than there are total posters on all public access sites combined. With the exception of Portal (which does seem to send out a strikingly high proportion of garbage) most PA machines are not really all that dif- ferent from any other site. Furthermore, don't forget about university sites like Berkeley that sell access to the lunatic fringe or companies like yours who give usenet access to non-employees. As you no doubt know there's a whole passle of people on your machine, Aliza, who don't work for your company. What about your demographic load profile, hmmm? at that point trish, concerned ps: killer doesn't charge for net.access
oleg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (09/07/88)
In article <3358@c3pe.UUCP> aliza@c3pe.UUCP (Aliza R. Panitz (AlmostLady)) writes: >The demographic load profile of Usenet and news changes considerably when >a signifigant portion is generated by people whose primary use of the >machines is for news and mail. It appears that the ages of PORTAL users run well below the average of the NET (whatever that may be). A "Hijacker@PORTAL" alleges that he was one of the original PORTAL users and he is 14. If the same kind of clientelle are the majority at other "rent-the-NET" sites, we have a problem of the formerly adult professional and academia forum turning into a giant "neighbourhood BBS". While I feel that providing wide access to the NET is a very important undertaking, there should be some restrictions on who gets to post. Could the administrators of "rent-the-NET" sites somehow restrict postings of their new users to "local" only and allow them a wider NET access if they prove to be capable of meeting the NET standards -- whatever those may be. -- "No regrets, no apologies" -- Ronald Reagan Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.cts.com (213)337-5230 UUCP:...!{trwrb|ucla-cs}!lcc!oleg DISCLAIMER: I speak for myself only.
wisner@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Bill Wisner) (09/07/88)
>Take a look at the monthly statistics. Three of the highest volume systems >are "pay uucp" arrangements - portal.cup.com, dasys (a.k.a. Electric Cat) >and killer. cough choke gag retch sneeze glorpbaz Wait just a damned minute here. killer is not, never has been, and probably never will be, for pay. killer's management reserves the right to deny access to any clown who pulls a JJ trick. Since no payment is accepted, there is no obligation for killer to provide access to its users. This machine is a free service. killer has paid its dues many times over. We've done more for this network than Portal ever has. We're a major news/mail hub in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. We have given network connections to sites in isolated areas that would otherwise be completely cut off, like Murfreesboro Tennessee. killer technically meets all the requirements to be considered a USENET backbone site, although it is not officially listed as one. And there's a complete archive of several USENET newsgroups available to anyone, through anonymous UUCP. Characterizing killer as a freeloading, profit-hungry system with no concern for the rest of the network is downright wrong. Next time, do try to be a bit more careful. Bill Wisner not quite the official opinions of the administration of killer, although I'm sure he agrees
wisner@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Bill Wisner) (09/07/88)
I sez: >killer's management reserves the right to deny access to any clown >who pulls a JJ trick. Oops. Sorry, Make that "JJ@portal". ..b :-)
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (09/07/88)
In article <3358@c3pe.UUCP> aliza@c3pe.UUCP (Aliza R. Panitz (AlmostLady)) writes: >In article <6253@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>Portal and uunet. The whores of the NET. > >Take a look at the monthly statistics. Three of the highest volume systems >are "pay uucp" arrangements - portal.cup.com, dasys (a.k.a. Electric Cat) >and killer. Killer is NOT a "pay uucp" system -- when you first sign up for access, you are firmly told that "Donations are not solicited, and will not be accepted". Killer users (and nodes fed by killer) therefore are not customers, and the sysop retains the right to police their behavior. That he does not do so by the same restrictive standards which others might like for him to use is another matter. And as far as Richard Sexton's "tasteful" statement quoted above is concerned: To compare uunet to Portal is ludicrous. Uunet is charging enough to make ends meet, if that -- it is a service provided by the USENIX association. It is certainly not a profit-making venture like Portal. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (09/07/88)
In article <201@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >And as far as Richard Sexton's "tasteful" statement quoted above is concerned: What is this ? Mr. thin skinned man ? It was a joke son, based on the priciple that the entire net can decide not to carry a group, but uunet will because it can make money off it. I see this as a good thing, but then I also dont think prostitution should be legalised. Also this was originally posted to talk.bizarre and alt.flamel I wouldnt have posted it to a news.* group without toning it down or explaining a bit more fully. >To compare uunet to Portal is ludicrous. Uunet is charging enough to make ends >meet, if that -- it is a service provided by the USENIX association. Given what UUNET charges, and how many site they feed and their costs to do what they do, by some (admittedly) wild asses guessing, there is a fair amount of money involved here. Now, I'm not casting dispersions on anyones honesty, but since nobody I know has seen a balance sheet the impression remains. We have a chain of stores here in Ca. that is ``non-profit''. -- ``Beam THAT between your pointy ears'' richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone}!gryphon!richard
tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Betz) (09/08/88)
In article <3358@c3pe.UUCP> aliza@c3pe.UUCP (Aliza R. Panitz (AlmostLady)) writes: > >Take a look at the monthly statistics. Three of the highest volume systems >are "pay uucp" arrangements - portal.cup.com, dasys (a.k.a. Electric Cat) >and killer. Wait just a durn minute here! dasys1 is hardly a "pay for play" system. Ain't nobody getting rich on the $5 a month support fees charged here... and we pull our weight, as we are the only alt.* backbone in NYC. I'm sure Rob will fill you all in on the rest of the situation, but since he's not able to get on as often as he'd like right now, I thought I'd better stand up and be counted! Buncha snobs on this net... -- "But Mister Swann, this is for ladies!!!" |Tom Betz <zzzzzzzzZIP!> |ZCNY, Yonkers, NY 10701-2509 "So is this, marm, but every so often |UUCP: tbetz@dasys1.UUCP or I must run a little water through it." | ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tbetz
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (09/08/88)
In article <6327@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >Given what UUNET charges, and how many site they feed and their costs to >do what they do, by some (admittedly) wild asses guessing, there is a >fair amount of money involved here. Now, I'm not casting dispersions >on anyones honesty, but since nobody I know has seen a balance sheet >the impression remains. Read your last sentence again. You most certainly are suggesting that someone is being dishonest, while claiming otherwise. Too bad you missed Rick Adams' excellent and detailed presentation at the SF Usenix. He went into a lot of detail about how much comes in and how much goes out (giving us a rough idea of the balance sheet), and how many megabytes per minute :-) it pumps. The amount of hardware and communication facilities UUNET has is amazing. No public access site (or any site on the net) is in the same league. The whole net would collapse without uunet; it's currently more important to mail topology than ihnp4 ever was. It was a very clever presentation; it was so interesting that those of us who came to fight about Webber, mail rerouting, and comp.?.women forgot all about it until the time ran out! -- - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,pyramid,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck jbuck@epimass.epi.com Old Arpa mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net If you leave your fate in the hands of the gods, don't be surprised if they have a few grins at your expense. - Tom Robbins
rsweeney@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Sweeney) (09/08/88)
In article <5433@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> wisner@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Bill Wisner) writes: >>Take a look at the monthly statistics. Three of the highest volume systems >>are "pay uucp" arrangements - portal.cup.com, dasys (a.k.a. Electric Cat) >>and killer. >Characterizing killer as a freeloading, profit-hungry system with >no concern for the rest of the network is downright wrong. Next time, >do try to be a bit more careful. I hope this isn't supposed to imply that systems that charge directly for their services are by nature freeloading and profit hungry and all that. I really don't see what difference it makes where the funding comes from. For what it's worth, most public access sites seem to contribute more than their 'share' in terms of goodwill to the net. Killer's contributions have already been stated. Most public access sites are small, but they still provide such mail and news services to other sites as they are capable of. The Cat is fairly large, and as we now feed a sizable portion of New York City and the surrounding area with both news and mail (including a non- restricted link to UUNET, which is expensive), I think we pull our share. If someone whose account is being funded for them by some organization would care to elaborate on why their site is somehow more 'worthy', I'd be interested. /rs -- Robert Sweeney {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!rsweeney Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix (212) 879-9031 - System Operator "Facts are stupid things." - President Reagan
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (09/09/88)
> Given what UUNET charges, and how many site they feed and their costs to > do what they do, by some (admittedly) wild asses guessing, there is a > fair amount of money involved here. Now, I'm not casting dispersions > on anyones honesty, but since nobody I know has seen a balance sheet > the impression remains. Legally, UUNET is part of USENIX. All of the UUNET money is in bank accounts owned by USENIX (separate from the main accounts for accounting convenience, but still owned by USENIX) The USENIX Board of Directors has a legal responsibility to make sure that the money is properly spent. They get a balance sheet every quarter (and I assure you that they look at it closely!). Also, given the IRS Tax Exempt status of USENIX, the IRS would take a very dim view of UUNET (i.e. USENIX) making a true profit. In addition, there will probably be a formal audit of the UUNET finances sometime within the next six months. (A formal audit on a regular basis is a normal part of any business operation.) For the curious, UUNET gross income is about $50,000 per month. Expenses are about $49,000 per month (The major expenses are about $20,000 to Tymnet, about $15,000 to SPRINT and about $5,000 for the computer loan.) Expenses currently do NOT include any salary money or rental of office space. (These expenses will start this fall.) At the current "profit" rate of $1,000 per month it would take many years to pay back the money that was lost during the startup months of operation. --rick
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (09/12/88)
In article <2461@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >In article <6327@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >Too bad you missed Rick Adams' excellent and detailed presentation at >the SF Usenix. He went into a lot of detail about how much comes in and >how much goes out (giving us a rough idea of the balance sheet), and >how many megabytes per minute :-) it pumps. The amount of hardware >and communication facilities UUNET has is amazing. No public access >site (or any site on the net) is in the same league. The whole net >would collapse without uunet; it's currently more important to mail >topology than ihnp4 ever was. >It was a very clever presentation; it was so interesting that those of >us who came to fight about Webber, mail rerouting, and comp.?.women >forgot all about it until the time ran out! Would it be possible for the text or a summary of this presentation to be posted here. I'm sure a lot more people (and uunet subscribers) read this than can afford to travel to Usenix. I'm mainly interested in the "techy" side of things. Number of lines, type of equipment, bytes pumped, etc; there has only been a small amount of info on this since things got rolling last year. I'm sure that the original description of the system is no longer accurate. So here's a request to Rick to post the text to his presentation or a summary thereof. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams) (09/15/88)
Currently the uunet computer is a 14 CPU Sequent Balance 21000. (The Symmetry upgrade still hasn't arrived. It's currently scheduled to ship on 9/16.) It has about 1 gigabyte of disk space. Here's a "df". Note the filesystems that are mounted. It's a tad unusual... Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on /dev/zd0a 7721 6143 805 88% / /dev/zd2d 7721 503 6445 7% /tmp /dev/zd0g 112197 98371 2606 97% /usr /dev/zd1g 500878 202540 248250 45% /usr/spool /dev/zd2f 216705 146926 48108 75% /usr/spool/ftp /dev/zd0h 104491 79315 14726 84% /usr/spool/news There is a 6250 bpi tape drive for backups and 24 megabytes of memory. There are currently 32 serial ports and an X.25 board. The X.25 board supports a 56 kbps Tymnet connection. The serial ports are currently divided into 10 800 number ports, 12 "local" direct dialup lines and 3 outbound WATS lines. There is a T-1 connection to SPRINT for the 800 service and the WATS lines. (All modems are Telebit Trailblazer Pluses) uunet is connected to the Internet via a local ethernet and then through the Center for Seismic Studies' arpanet IMP. It is connected to mcvax via a 9600 bps serial line running SLIP (surprise...). The mcvax line will be upgraded to 64 kbps as soon as they get it hooked up. (I.e. we ordered it and are now waiting for it). It is the nameserver and domain forwarder for about 100 domains. There are currently 421 uunet subscribers. Each day we average about 200 connect hours and transfer about 190 megabytes (this does NOT count Internet traffic). I think sendmail processes about 9-10,000 messages per day, but I haven't checked lately. We are feeding news to about 202 sites. Income is running about $50,000 per month. Expenses are running about $49,000 per month ($20,000 for Tymnet; $15,000 for Sprint; $5,000 for the computer). The average customer bill is about $125. The lowest is $35. The highest is often over $1,000. The size of the bill depends on how much data you transfer and how and when you do it. (E.g. using Tymnet during the day is 9-10 times more expensive that using Tymnet at night.) UUNET is run on a non-profit basis by the USENIX Association. I expect the connect hours and megabytes transferred to greatly increase Octoberish, when X11R3 is releasedish. Historically, traffic increases about 40% for the 3 weeks after an X11 release. (With a Trailblazer modem, you can uucp the X release for less money than MIT charges for the distribution tape; and you get it a whole lot faster [the same day its released if you are lucky]) If I could get MIT to put out X releases more frequently, we be doing really well! Information on subscribing to UUNET, etc can be obtained by sending your postal address to uunet-request@uunet.uu.net or calling (703) 764-9789. ---rick