[comp.sys.dec] Is it 'dying'? LONG

gil@limbic.UUCP (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) (09/01/88)

I would like to know if anyone on the net (including the author if the article
to which this posting is in reference) has read the article "No Shortage of
Topics on the Usenet" (in the ''UNIX VIEWS'' section of _digital_review_,
August 29, 1988, p73) by James W. Livingston.  This article is the second of
two that I have read (perhaps the first one was authored by the same person)
having seemingly negative connotations regarding the net in itself.  Before
following-up this article, please read the article in _digital_review_.

Now for my input...

This is the second of two articles that I have read that see the end of
Usenet and netnews introduced by the decision AT&T made to not pass 3rd
party mail through its machine [ie. you can't use an AT&T machine as a
stepping stone to another outside machine, but you can use it to mail to
a machine within AT&T itself, or to receive the distribution of netnews in
certain cases -- YES -- this is the correct interpretation of AT&T's new
policy].

In any event, I do NOT feel that this has at all marked the beginning of the
end of Usenet.  Although the AT&T systems did form a relatively major backbone
to Usenet itself, they are not what makes-up the Usenet.  Usenet is a
cooperation between people and organizations in who's best interests it is
to keep this network working.  In some form or another, we all derive pleasure
and professional advancement by participating in Usenet.  At this time, I
see no reason for all of the net to go out and buy time on a machine
simply to get usenet access.  As Telebit (and other higher-speed modems)
become more affordable, news access will become less burdensome to smaller
sites, who will be able to participate more in the sharing of news.  In
short, everyone will feel the pinch of AT&T's decision, but this doesn't
mean the end of the net by far.

Second -- Is Usenet changing?  Yes.  It will ALWAYS be in transition as
technology changes.  I don't think we have to worry about running out to
"[...] experience the net while it is still available [...]" because it
will always be available.  What did we lose that AT&T made convenient?
A large, seemingly unlimited "backbone."  That is solved through using
alternative routes through (perhaps? smaller) sites.  A message that took
two hours may take one day now.  Perhaps we are now more dependent on the
university sites which may be up and down from day to day (but usually up).
The other important convenience AT&T provided (and perhaps the one with
the biggest impact) is the loss of up-to-date maps and their routing system.
This problem is becoming less of a problem with more installations installing
the "smail" mailer and keeping an online pathalias file up-to-date.  In the
future, there will likely be other ways of routing messages. Things DO change,
but I doubt that change will mean the dissolving of Usenet.

My purpose in writing this article is to rebut, in a sense of the word, the
sarcasm and lack of meaning that people like Mr. Livingston give to Usenet
and netnews in general.  He could have, instead of discussing the net in
a video-game-like light, discussed the net as a *wealth* of _useful_
information, and a group of talented people sharing their expertise
with others...discussing a wide variety of topics in a nationwide/worldwide
forum...showing how the net really symbolizes a peaceful worldwide exchange
of information [even though it may, in some cases, seem "...without end (or
point)."].

Usenet will only die if we, the net itself, decide to stop supporting it (are
we really doing this in general??), or if some kind of government regulation
makes it too expensive (unlikely at this point).  I don't believe that
published scare-tactics are going to maintain the popularity and integrity
of the net (just like the media made *all* local bulletin board users seem
like teenagers passing illegal information and breaking into systems).

Other comments on this topic are welcome.  I apologize in advance if my
interpretation of the article mentioned above was incorrect.  I also
apologize if this topic was beaten to death with the last outrush of
articles following AT&T's policy change.  I simply wish to stimulate some
insight as to how the net is being viewed by folks on the outside (maybe
your boss???) through the various forms of media.  I do feel the crunch
of AT&T's decision, but they had to do what they had to do.  It is now
up to us to adjust.

+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Gil Kloepfer, Jr.                  | Net-Address:                           |
| ICUS Software Systems              | {boulder,talcott}!icus!limbic!gil      |
| P.O. Box 1                         | Internet: gil@icus.islp.ny.us          |
| Islip Terrace, New York  11752     | Othernet: gil@limbic.UUCP              |
+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+