lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) (02/08/89)
I am wondering what the net's thoughts are on the future (possibly not too far) addition of commercially based article distribution services such as Compuserve, BIX, etc. to the USENET community. For instance, currently there are gateways for Fidonet and ProLine systems to receive and post articles both on their local systems and the articles flow back onto the net or from the net into their private distribution networks. There may in fact be other such networks gatewayed at this time. The other day I believe that I saw a posting from a system manager type from BIX asking a unix-y question. I think that I remember his site name as being bix. And I know of one or two folks who are working very hard to be able to get articles fromCIS into a /usr/spool/cis/forum type format and replys back to CIS, so once that is in place I can easily see where one would find other groups flowing in both directions. I am not promoting a positive or negative reaction here - just curious to see what those who are running and using the net think of this. Is this environment, which in the past has been very particular about commercial announcements, etc. going to 'permit' the addition of such groups? I certainly remember the ruckus as stargate made announcements about restrictions on data flowing thru their service; I think that I would be overly optimistic to believe that such issues wouldnt come up when commercial services start using existing data and contributing. Finally, we must remember that usenet is more than internet, bitnet, etc. that there are folks out here using uucp and modems and thus are not restricted by previously signed contracts NOT to perform such a gateway service; thus, it should not be considered certain that anything CAN be done about it. I am just hoping to change the subject around here just a little bit ;-) -- Larry W. Virden 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 (614) 864-8817 75046,606 (CIS) ; LVirden (ALPE) ; osu-cis!n8emr!lwv (UUCP) osu-cis!n8emr!lwv@TUT.CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU (INTERNET) The world's not inherited from our parents, but borrowed from our children.
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (02/10/89)
In article <796@n8emr.UUCP> lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) writes: >I am wondering what the net's thoughts are on the future (possibly not too >far) addition of commercially based article distribution services such >as Compuserve, BIX, etc. to the USENET community. It's a moot point. Portal is a for-profit outfit, as are many of the public access sites. Aside from size, I see no difference between CIS, BIX and Portal. And if The Source bought a full feed from uunet, I don't see that we could do anything about it. If someone is dumb enough to pay for something they could get for free, that's not my problem. Of course, if CIS were to start charging a fee for reading articles originating there, I would feel a bit differently about it. Particularly if they started doing a monthly sendsys worldwide to determine who to bill. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that CIS would be interested in joining the net. They make their money from connect and storage fees. I would think that their users would leave in droves after finding out that Usenet is available for free/cheap. While people would still dial in to access their other services, I would expect it to mean the end of the CIS forums. -- Just another uninformed opinion from Dave Mack
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (02/11/89)
In article <4524@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >If someone is dumb enough to pay for something they could get for >free, that's not my problem. > >Of course, if CIS were to start charging a fee for reading articles >originating there, I would feel a bit differently about it. Particularly >if they started doing a monthly sendsys worldwide to determine who to >bill. Oh, come on, Dave. Let's say CIS did such a thing and mailed you a bill. Would you pay it? Of course not. None of us signed anything when we joined Usenet. We are under no obligation to pay up on dubious claims. The act of posting an article gives that article to every site on the net, period, whether CIS posts it or Brad posts it or whatever. The pay services can attach to Usenet if they want, as long as they realize we're not going to pay them. It's up to them to decide who they want to bill. Just as long as they don't pretend they own what they do not own. -- - Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, or uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck, or jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net for old Arpa sites Life is not a dress rehearsal.
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (02/11/89)
lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) said:
-I am wondering what the net's thoughts are on the future (possibly not too
-far) addition of commercially based article distribution services such
-as Compuserve, BIX, etc. to the USENET community.
If they're willing to pay/do their share it doesn't bother me.
The most important feature would have to be the ability to mail back to
the person who sent the message. Currently there is no convenient way to
get mail to BIX or Compuserve using conventional uucp methods. (If I'm wrong
about this, please let me know...I've got some mail I want to send...)
Accountability is just about all I'm asking for. I'll let others ask for
copyright protection.
--
David Bedno (aka The Cat in the Hat) Now appearing at: davidbe@sco.COM -OR-
.!{uunet,decvax!microsoft,ucbvax!ucscc}!sco!davidbe -OR-
At home: 408-425-5266 At work: 408-425-7222 x5123 (I'm probably here...)
I've given you a pretty good answer.
Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with your question.bensmith@bixpb (Ben Smith) (02/12/89)
It is true that BIX is considering posting some of the NetNews articles
in a conference for just that purpose. The reasoning as follows:
(1) Many BIX users do not have access to UseNet but are interested
knowing what is going on.
(2) The articles are editited to include only valuable article of
interest to BIX readers (this may be considered either a service
or a limitation, depending on your point of view.
(3) NetNews may seem to be free, but someone is actually having to
pay the phone bills, the disk space, the administration time.
The idea that the news is free is very naive. BIX is actually
an inexpensive system for individuals.
However, if there is an overwhelming negative reaction to net users about
the possibility of having their articles appearing on one more machine
after being transmitted to tens of thousands around the world, we would
not pursue the plans to bring NetNews to BIX.
Please direct and comments to me (bixpb!bensmith), the sys and news admin
at this site, or to bixpb!gbond, the editor-in-chief of BIX. (Actually,
I'm not really sure of George Bond's title, but it is his departments
UNIX machine that we are using.)
--
Ben Smith - technical editor | (603) 924-2575 | uunet!bixpb!bensmith
BYTE Magazine | | uunet!bixpb!smith!ben
One Phoenix Mill Lane | |
Peterborough, NH 03458 | | BIX: bensmithjbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (02/14/89)
In article <206@bixpb> bensmith@bixpb.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >It is true that BIX is considering posting some of the NetNews articles >in a conference for just that purpose. The reasoning as follows: See Ben's article for his reasons. Ben, I have no objection to Usenet articles appearing on BIX, PROVIDED that it is also OK for BIX users to take some of the best BIX articles and post them on Usenet. I'm told that in the past, you objected to this or forbid this. I'm in favor of anything that leads to greater interchange of useful information. My only objection is to people who would take only and not give back. -- - Joe Buck jbuck@epimass.epi.com, or uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck, or jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net for old Arpa sites Life is not a dress rehearsal.
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (02/14/89)
In article <206@bixpb> bensmith@bixpb.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > >It is true that BIX is considering posting some of the NetNews articles >in a conference for just that purpose. The reasoning as follows: Personally I think that that would be a good thing. > (2) The articles are editited to include only valuable article of > interest to BIX readers (this may be considered either a service > or a limitation, depending on your point of view. I think that it is important that retain *all* information in the body of the article, without change. Further there should be an easy to use mechanism that allows your readers to reply either by mail to the author of an article; or with a followup news article. If you don't have a bi-directional flow of information I don't think the net will be interested in having you join. > (3) NetNews may seem to be free, but someone is actually having to > pay the phone bills, the disk space, the administration time. > The idea that the news is free is very naive. BIX is actually > an inexpensive system for individuals. I think that it is simply a tradeoff, an expensive 286/386 with Unix vs. a pc with procomm plus line charges. Kind of like the difference between buying and renting. I have no problem as long as BIX is not charging a surcharge for access to this type of information. >However, if there is an overwhelming negative reaction to net users about >the possibility of having their articles appearing on one more machine >after being transmitted to tens of thousands around the world, we would >not pursue the plans to bring NetNews to BIX. As long as you are not restricting how the articles are forwarded by your users there shouldn't be any problem. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/14/89)
In article <4524@inco.UUCP>, mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: > Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that CIS would be interested in joining > the net. They make their money from connect and storage fees. ... > I would expect it to mean the end of the CIS forums. Nonsense. The CIS forums supply at least two services that Usenet can't: Conferencing. Huge numbers of binary downloads. It's just these services I, for example, call CI$ for. And I have the net. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/14/89)
In article <4524@inco.UUCP>, Dave Mack writes: > ... I'm .. surprised that CIS would be interested in joining > the net. .... I would > think that their users would leave ... after finding > out that Usenet is available for free/cheap. ... > I would expect it to mean the end of the CIS forums. Another entry in the net history: Imminent death of CIS forums predicted. Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- PUNSTERS MAKE BETTER LOVERS!
karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer) (02/14/89)
Dave Mack writes: >And if The Source bought a full feed from >uunet, I don't see that we could do anything about it. >If someone is dumb enough to pay for something they could get for >free, that's not my problem. Agreed. If the bigtime pay networks want to open the Pandora's box to get access to that juicy 4 MB/day of traffic represented by Usenet, fine. Once their news-oriented users find out they can get Usenet for less, or for free, they'll probably migrate away from the more expensive pay systems. Let's hear from BIX: In article <206@bixpb>, bensmith@bixpb (Ben Smith) writes: > It is true that BIX is considering posting some of the NetNews articles > in a conference for just that purpose. The reasoning as follows: > (1) Many BIX users do not have access to UseNet but are interested > knowing what is going on. > (2) The articles are editited to include only valuable article of > interest to BIX readers (this may be considered either a service > or a limitation, depending on your point of view. Ah ha, pre-edited in advance, that means (certainly a "limitation" in this spud's opinion) no Amiga/Ridge/Sequent/Sun/Cray/hockey/woodworking/scuba/bizarre coverage, eh? ...and nothing sufficiently ugly, like your users finding out enough about Usenet to discover they could switch to it for less money. > (3) NetNews may seem to be free, but someone is actually having to > pay the phone bills, the disk space, the administration time. > The idea that the news is free is very naive. BIX is actually > an inexpensive system for individuals. Fine, owning your own Unix system and running it as a news site isn't free and may not be cheap compared to Bix. However, news actually *is* free to a great many people, such as all the users of sugar, killer, and many other no-charge public-access systems, as well as to a lot of people whose employers pay for it, and nearly free to all the users of the flat-monthly-fee systems like Portal. How can Bix compete with that? ... don't talk about it too much and just carry a "best of" section, I guess. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "An expression of deep worry and concern failed to -- karl@ficc.uu.net cross either of Zaphod's faces." -- Hitchiker's Guide
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (02/14/89)
In article <206@bixpb>, bensmith@bixpb (Ben Smith) writes: > It is true that BIX is considering posting some of the NetNews articles > in a conference for just that purpose. The reasoning as follows: > (3) NetNews may seem to be free, but someone is actually having to > pay the phone bills, the disk space, the administration time. > The idea that the news is free is very naive. BIX is actually > an inexpensive system for individuals. My personal cost: $1500 for my computer (AT&T 3b1) and $25/mo for an extra phone line. I had the extra phone line before I bought the computer, and $1500 is low for a development machine with a compiler and other stuff. Ie: The average computer freak spends a grand or so on their computer and buys an extra phone line. If you're a student at the University of Houston, or at many other college campuses, you can get a Usenet account for free. You just fill out a form and promise to be nice. You don't have to own a computer or dumb terminal, or have even one phone line. I can't afford BIX, Compu$erve, GEnie etc because of their high hourly rates. Even if I dropped by second line to pay for the service, I'd only get 5 or 6 hours of access time per month. Usenet, for many of us, *is* truly free. -- J. Eric Townsend | "When I was a boy, we didn't have MTV. uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict | We had to take drugs and go to concerts..." ..!bellcore!texbell!/ 511 Parker #2 |EastEnders Mailing List: BITNET: cosc5fa@uhnix1.EDU Houston,Tx,77007 |eastender@flatline.UUCP
news@m2xenix.UUCP (news aka randy) (02/14/89)
In article <206@bixpb> bensmith@bixpb.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >It is true that BIX is considering posting some of the NetNews articles >in a conference for just that purpose. >... >However, if there is an overwhelming negative reaction to net users Few would consider me overwhelming, but please count me as one vote vehemently against this. My objection to BIX, a for-profit enterprise, exploiting for profit folk's pro bono publico efforts. -- ..!{mcvax!uunet,tektronix,sun!nosun}!oresoft!m2xenix!news (Randy Bush)
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/14/89)
It seems obvious to me that you've not taken a trip over to BIX, Karl. Matt Trask would love to have you join his boating conference, for example. I don't recall who the scuba conference moderator is, but there is a conference for this, too. In fact, there are probably more conferences on BIX than there are newsgroups on USENET. I used to be the moderator for a consultants conference, a conference on the IBM PS/2 series of computers and another for software authors. BIX is a *big* place. And pretty friendly. Well, mostly friendly: there are some folks there who tend to be a little rude, but he's only one BYTE columnist, anyway. :-) And, for the most part, has a full history of the last 'n' years of operation (Ben, how many years has it been?). This means that you can scan a considerable knowledge base rather rapidly and rather inexpensively. Somebody else provides the [virtual] unlimited disk space, flames are pulled out of the message stream, foul language and advertisments are pulled. Not to imply there is censorship, though: just a coupla ground rules which make BIX a pretty pleasant place to visit. At about $6/hr, it can get a tad expensive if you stay on-line all day. Of course, many people simply download all outstanding messages and keep upto date off-line. It takes about ten minutes per day for most people to work this way. Not so much for what you get, in my opinion. I used to belong to 84 conferences, each averaging eight topics. My daily download took 15 minutes. My affiliation with BIX, currently, is that of a happy user. I moderate a closed conference, so maybe I'm still a little biased: moderators do not pay for their on-line time. Simply because BIX charges a coupla bucks doesn't mean that they're somehow money-sucking-scum-buckets. You get a pretty good value for your dollar. I suggest that you take them up on their freebie trial offer before you put them down.....you might be surprised to find that they complement USENET pretty darn well. Heck, each of the pay services serves a particular class of user/customer - just as USENET does. Ross M. Greenberg UNIX TODAY! 594 Third Avenue New York New York 10016 Review Editor Voice:(212)-889-6431 BBS:(212)-889-6438 uunet!utoday!greenber BIX: greenber MCI: greenber PCMagNet: 72241,36
bensmith@bixpb (Ben Smith) (02/14/89)
Everyone's comments have been very helpful for us to find out what feelings are out there about the idea of posting NewsNet articles in BIX. I have received far more criticism than support. The one thing that everyone seems to been in consensus about is that the information flow both ways. The other response of note is the value of a two-way mail link between the net and BIX. Rick Adams and many others feel this would be far more easy and cost effective. So, the direction seems to be away from netnews links and towards the mail. Now that the editors of BYTE have access to the Net, we won't give that up. It doesn't look as though BIX will be posting your articles without first checking with the author. (I have noticed that some BIXers will bring some things over from the net, but that is expected on every BBS. See discussion in news.admin.) We are always looking for good authors. Please direct any ideas to my mailbox on the net. We are also always interested in feedback (both negative and positive). If you are going to turn on the flame throwers, give me warning so as I can don my asbestos suit. -ben -- Ben Smith - technical editor | (603) 924-2575 | uunet!bixpb!bensmith BYTE Magazine | | uunet!bixpb!smithbs!ben One Phoenix Mill Lane | | Peterborough, NH 03458 | | BIX: bensmith
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (02/15/89)
In article <206@bixpb> bensmith@bixpb.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
)It is true that BIX is considering posting some of the NetNews articles
)in a conference for just that purpose. The reasoning as follows:
) (1) Many BIX users do not have access to UseNet but are interested
) knowing what is going on.
No gripe with this. I don't have access to BIX, but I'm interested
in what is going on there. Does reverse reasoning apply?
) (2) The articles are editited to include only valuable article of
) interest to BIX readers (this may be considered either a service
) or a limitation, depending on your point of view.
Whoops, here I see a problem. Could you post an example of an
article editited in the way you mean? I can see that I would have
serious problems with some ways BIX could edit articles, but I'd like to
see what you have in mind before I try to make a decision.
) (3) NetNews may seem to be free, but someone is actually having to
) pay the phone bills, the disk space, the administration time.
) The idea that the news is free is very naive. BIX is actually
) an inexpensive system for individuals.
What does this have to do with the above? I'm not argueing its
truth, just its relevance to the discussion. It seems to be that you are
proposing that since you are spending money on getting USENET that you
have the right to do with it what you please. This is probably true,
but lets look at two other questions.
First, does your expense enhance USENET? If your site becomes a
black hole, absorbing information and contributing nothing back, then is
it an advantage to USENET to let you do so? Basically, you say that USENET
is not free. Fine, but how does your money make it better?
The second question is related to the first, we can see what USENET
is going to do for you, what are you going to do for USENET? You see,
different sites contribute to USENET in different ways. Sometimes it just
provides a link. Sometimes it supplies LOTS of links, and archiving, and
other services. Some sites maintain and develope software for the whole
net. Even the smallest sites make a contribution... the time and thoughts
of those who read news there, via postings to the net and replys to posters.
What is BIX going to provide? It has the posibility of adding something
significant, besides the thoughts of its users and subscribers, such as
a channel into the press via BYTE. (Example, would a realistic description
of the JEDR/R.H.F. incident, as opposed to the presentations we've seen from
the media have helped? I think so.) But are your users going to be able to
share things with us?
)However, if there is an overwhelming negative reaction to net users about
)the possibility of having their articles appearing on one more machine
)after being transmitted to tens of thousands around the world, we would
)not pursue the plans to bring NetNews to BIX.
I depends on the factors I'd described above, at least in my case.
None of the other sites (to my knowledge) is preparing to edit postings...
)Ben Smith - technical editor | (603) 924-2575 | uunet!bixpb!bensmith
)BYTE Magazine | | uunet!bixpb!smith!ben
--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu
Love is wanting to keep more than one person happy.vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (02/15/89)
In article <3077@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: )In article <4524@inco.UUCP>, mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: )> Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that CIS would be interested in joining )> the net. They make their money from connect and storage fees. ... )> I would expect it to mean the end of the CIS forums. )Nonsense. The CIS forums supply at least two services that Usenet can't: ) Conferencing. For clarification, I believe that Peter is refering to chats, what communications people refer to as synchronous conferencing. (As opposed to asynchronous conferencing, which describes the net and aspects of CIS as well.) Chats being multi-user, realtime computer communications. ) Huge numbers of binary downloads. Isn't this available from the net as well? And sources too usually? -- Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure. SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu Love is wanting to keep more than one person happy.
csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) (02/15/89)
In article <2869@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >In article <4524@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >>If someone is dumb enough to pay for something they could get for >>free, that's not my problem. >> >>Of course, if CIS were to start charging a fee for reading articles >>originating there, I would feel a bit differently about it. Particularly >>if they started doing a monthly sendsys worldwide to determine who to >>bill. > >Oh, come on, Dave. Let's say CIS did such a thing and mailed you a >bill. Would you pay it? Of course not. None of us signed anything >when we joined Usenet. We are under no obligation to pay up on dubious >claims. The act of posting an article gives that article to every site >on the net, period, whether CIS posts it or Brad posts it or whatever. Can you pronounce "hyperbole", Joe? Yes, I thought so. I've gotta remember to start putting those damned smileys in. Dave just for practice: -)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/16/89)
In article <6383@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: > In article <3077@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: [ CI$ has... ] > ) Huge numbers of binary downloads. > Isn't this available from the net as well? And sources too usually? Only if you are on the Internet. Most of the stuff on the net is sources, but most freeware on PCs is binary-only. Alas, but there it is. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (02/16/89)
In article <6383@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) writes: >)Nonsense. The CIS forums supply at least two services that Usenet can't: > >) Conferencing. > > For clarification, I believe that Peter is refering to chats, >what communications people refer to as synchronous conferencing. (As >opposed to asynchronous conferencing, which describes the net and >aspects of CIS as well.) Chats being multi-user, realtime computer >communications. And actually, chat, or CB, or 'meetings' (in Portal parlance) is available in hundreds of public systems across the United States. If you think $10 per month is too expensive for unlimited chat on Portal, then try any number of TBBS multiline BBS programs which are usually free. At last count there were also several dozen DiversiDial programs running. Chicago area has 3 or 4 DD's which always have great turnouts every night. One of them here charges *ten dollars per year* for a password. Mercy! How would we ever survive without the $6 per hour chats ofered on CIS and others like it. And of course, that's not $6 per hour TOTAL, it is $6 per hour per user, meaning you and your new friend for the evening pay $12, plus local connect charges of course. Of course! Regards Ben Smith, I also wrote him a note and said (regarding Telecom Digest/comp.dcom.telecom) that if bix wanted to use it, we would first need to have a long, very candid conversation about TWO WAY SHARING. I told him I was not interested in a one way feed he resold to the users there. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / US Mail: 60690-1570 (personal zip code) FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (02/17/89)
In <7727@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >I told [Ben Smith the guy who runs BIX] ... >I was not interested in a one way feed he resold to the users there. Why not? How does adding more readers hurt you? Sure, having more contributors is better, but what's wrong with having readers you otherwise wouldn't have? Yes, I agree that there is something about "reselling" Usenet that makes people feel uneasy. Me too. Still and all, if the ultimate goal is the widespread dissemination of information (area codes, jokes, sources), why should you care if person A reads it at BBN where news is free via NNTP links over the Internet, or Person B reads it at a medium-sized company with a $500/month phone bill, or Person C reads it on a home system with a $100/month phone bill, or Person D reads it on a commercial provider with a $50/month fee? /rich $alz, proud non-copyright holder -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (02/17/89)
In article <1501@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >Yes, I agree that there is something about "reselling" Usenet that makes >people feel uneasy. Me too. Still and all, if the ultimate goal is the >widespread dissemination of information (area codes, jokes, sources), why >should you care if person A reads it at BBN where news is free via NNTP >links over the Internet, or Person B reads it at a medium-sized company >with a $500/month phone bill, or Person C reads it on a home system with a >$100/month phone bill, or Person D reads it on a commercial provider with >a $50/month fee? You cannot compare reselling of Usenet with the fact that some people read it at sites with large phone bills. Everyone has phone bills; goddess knows I have enough of them every month.The person who reads the 'free news'via NNTP still had to pay a phone bill, same as the person at home who calls into the dialup of some small public site like chinet. And if was purely a matter of getting more readers that interested me, then I would exchange with a network similar to Usenet, such as Fidonet. In fact, a couple of Fidonet sysops now receive [Telecom Digest] via the gateway with Usenet. At least with Fido we are talking about system operators and users who share the same general attitude about networking we have. If it is really just additional readers that you want, then why not make a deal with some cable TV company to use one of their idle channel to scroll Usenet messages across the screen all day and night. Now if someone found a cable company willing to do that, and share the revenue from a 'pay per view' type arrangement, then they could make a fortune. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / US Mail: 60690-1570 (personal zip code) FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (02/17/89)
In article <1501@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: : In <7727@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: : >I told [Ben Smith the guy who runs BIX] ... : >I was not interested in a one way feed he resold to the users there. : : Why not? How does adding more readers hurt you? Sure, having more : contributors is better, but what's wrong with having readers you otherwise : wouldn't have? One basic notion underlying Usenet is that it is a cooperative. We all contribute according to our abilities and inclinations and we all benefit from the contributions of others. (And yes, the bulk of Usenetters never post, but that is OK: that they are on the net and might, conditions permitting, make a positive contribution is sufficient.) To put this personally, I spend my time and effort writing these postings not, perhaps unlike others, because I like to hear myself talk but because I believe that I am contributing to a society from which I will receive benefits in return. I do feel that my efforts should be taken advantage of only by those who are in a position to make some kind of contribution to the net. It is for this reason that I am opposed to people being on the net who are prevented from posting, and thus to services that provide a one-way link to the net. --- Bill { uunet!proxftl | novavax } !twwells!bill
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/18/89)
>One basic notion underlying Usenet is that it is a cooperative. Having been on USENET for going on ten years, I disagree with this. The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame. Whatever cooperation that does go on with USENET is there simply to make it easier for people to rip each other to pieces.... >We >all contribute according to our abilities and inclinations and we all >benefit from the contributions of others. Actually, the USENET population breaks down into four audiences: there are the readers -- by far the largest group. From what I can tell, for every poster in a newsgroup there are at least 50-100 readers. Maybe more. There are the conversationalists -- the majority of the posters who have some knowledge and like to sit down and talk. There are the experts -- the few people with the knowledge that are willing to take the time to answer questions and spread the word. Every group has it's own set: Jeff Meyer in comics, Spaf and Rick Adams in the news areas, Dan Allen in hypercard, lsr in comp.sys.mac, etc. Finally, there are the idiots -- self-proclaimed experts who's lack of knowledge is exceeded only by their ability to abuse anyone who attempts to disagree with them. Every group has a couple of experts. And every group has at least one idiot. Thus are balance and harmony (and discord) maintained. It's sometimes hard to remember this in the bulk of the flamewars that all of the hassle and pain is generally caused by one or two highly-motivated, caustic twits. Gee, I woke up cynical this morning.... Chuq Von Rospach -*- Editor,OtherRealms -*- Member SFWA chuq@apple.com -*- CI$: 73317,635 -*- Delphi: CHUQ -*- Applelink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] Signature quotes? We don't need no stinkin' signature quotes!