olson@lasspvax.UUCP (Todd Olson) (11/03/85)
[]
I would like to make a suggestion for restructuring the net in such a way
that everyone pays their FAIR SHARE of the PHONE COST. Let me warn you
first that I do not know how the net currently works as my thesis keeps getting
in the way of studing the matter, hence my solution might be the current
system. (Please: no flames, I'm merely a concerned citizen trying trying
to keep a 'public good' going.) Also if the problem is more the demand
the net is putting on a machine in cpu time spent serving the news then
in money paid to the Phone Company, then my 'solution' isn't.
|-->-- 1
news --->--- A --->---|-->-- 2
|-->-- 3
|-->-- 4
The current distribution method, if my inference is correct is that
after the news has arrived at A, A calls up 1,2,3,4 in turn and passes
the news on to them each in turn. Probably, at the same time A also
collects the any new news from 1,2,3,4. Thus A pays for all of the
communication between it and 1,2,3,4.
IN SHORT
I suggest this should be turned around. Machines 1,2,3,4 should each
call A and ask for any new news.
IN DETAIL
Several problems immediately come to mind, one being how do we keep
1,2,3,4 from calling A at the same time and another being how should A get
new news from 1,2,3,4. Here is what I imagine should happen...
1) For every pair of machines that exchange news directly, (eg A,1) one
is designated the up-stream site (A) and one the down-stream site (1)
2) At some (more or less) prearranged time A calls 1 and asks for any
new news that 1 has to pass along. 1 sends the news to A. The
connection is then terminated.
3) Immediately 1 calls A back and asks if A has any news for it. Now
A sends news to 1. The call is terminated.
4) The news exchange is now done.
DISCUSSION
The main point to note is that if every machine gets every piece of news
then EVERY machine PAYS the SAME in phone bills because each machine pays
only for what it gets, not for what it feeds to others.
One might object that it this takes TWO phone calls to exchange the news
where one should suffice. But TWO phone calls is the only way to make
each machine pay for their share of the news.
The reason for having one site (A) always initiate the exchange is so
that it doesn't get called simultaneously by 1,2,3,4.
Note that if A decides that it will not deal in some group, say *.mac,
and 1 wants this group, then 1 can still get most of its news from A
and then go elsewhere (possibly long distance) to get *.mac.
This scheme might make it easier for some of the backbone sites to
off load some of the serving because it would be less costly for other
sites to become servers.
PROBLEMS
1) The main backbone sites will still spend a lot of cpu time
communicating with other machines. They will still need banks of
phones to handle the traffic. (However they won't be paying for
all that traffic. Only for what they get, which is the same as
every one else)
2) What if in step (3) above, 1 does not call back. Does A hang, not
dealing with 2,3,or4? I suggest some sort of time out mechanism.
3) This scheme will encourage Fragmentation. That is it will be possible
for some site to draw it's news from several sites, for speed
or cost reasons. This will complicate book keeping. Maybe the
first bit of communication should be, "I want news from you, the
last thing I saw was ... Do you have anything more up to date
than this?"
4) Sites that feed news long distance will have higher phone bills.
(I suppose we could put up with only local calls and long transit
times if the net is dense enough in real space. (-:) Maybe then
we could get the biologist to study it for us to help us keep it
alive (-:))
5) Suppose one site generates a lot of 'junk'. They never pay for
what they generate, but everone else pays to get it. Well, I
don't see a way around this. All I can say is that at least it
is better that each site pay for receiving junk mail rather than
one backbone site (that merely transmits the junk) paying for
everyone to get the junk.
I'm sure that there are other technical problems.
Will this distribute costs more equitably?
What do the rest of you think?
Is there anyone up to creating this new beast? (Unfortunately(?), I have
a physics thesis to produce, otherwise I'm just crazy enough to try create
this on my own, for personal amusment and education.)
SUMMARY
Structure the net so that people pay for what they get rather than what
they give.
--
Todd Olson
ARPA: olson@lasspvax -- or -- olson%lasspvax.tn.cornell.edu@cu-arpa
UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra,...}!cornell!lasspvax!olson
US Mail: Dept Physics, Clark Hall, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York 14853-2501ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/06/85)
I'm not going to include any of this discussion because it was long
and incorrect. The author makes several invalid assumptions.
1. Netnews flows in a true tree like fashion.
Wrong, net news can and sometimes is richly connected.
2. The major expense of backbone sites is distribution to local
sites.
No, not quite. Many people poll the backbone sites and
other local sites for news. Remembering the original UUCP
paper, you can divide the net in to three classes of hosts:
Rich hosts (with autodialers), Cheap hosts (incoming modems
only), and Paranoid hosts (no modems). Handling news on
any host is a major load regardless of which way the charging
on the phone lines go. In addition, the backbones are still
paying for the high expense backbone node to backbone node calls.
-Rongrt@twitch.UUCP ( G.R.Tomasevich) (11/13/85)
I vote for deleting net.flame and net.jokes. Also many other groups, some of which I read, such as net.auto and net.bicycle, if that is necessary to save the net. -- George Tomasevich, ihnp4!twitch!grt AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
somner@lasspvax.UUCP (David Somner) (11/15/85)
In article <256@twitch.UUCP> grt@twitch.UUCP ( G.R.Tomasevich) writes: >I vote for deleting net.flame and net.jokes. Also many other groups, some >of which I read, such as net.auto and net.bicycle, if that is necessary >to save the net. >-- > George Tomasevich, ihnp4!twitch!grt > AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ Oh? Really? To "save" the net? From what will you be saving it? Nothing... This will only add to the amount of restrictions placed on all of the net groups to increase drastically, and a HUGE loss in volume. Many people have very strong views about freedom of interchange of software and ideas. Moderation will only delete this freedom. In the end, there won't be much left, if anything at all. Consider how many people actually DO read these groups and how many people who don't have direct access to these groups rely heavilly upon recieving copies of the info posted there? This figure is in the millions, if you consider world-wide contributions. Many people have been writing flames on local computer systems regarding the deletion of many of these news groups. Unfortunately these flames cannot get out to the net world just yet. If I were to compile the flames from this general area alone, I would have to use approximately 60M of disk space just to store it on. Does someone want to send a tape so I can send it to them? I don't think so. It's an extremely large volume of mail to read, all NOT in favor of the deletion of net news groups, especially those which are in heavy useage, such as net.mac.* and net.sources.* What I believe we should really consider is this: Are the people out there who are calling themselves "backbone sites" really backbone sites? The definition of a backbone site is a site which carries ALL the news groups. If a backbone site does not want to carry certain groups any more, there shouldn't all of a sudden be talk of removing a news group. Instead, there should be talk of removing a "backbone" site. A site like that, to me, is a "funnybone site". With so much talk about removing groups, why not remove all of those groups in which there is litterally NO traffic, instead of the ones which are obviously benefitting people, which can be seen from the HIGH volume of traffic. People are wondering why there is such a big drop in useage of a lot of groups. This should be obvious: With all of this talk of rmgrouping, people are now posting to THIS net news group, trying to save their favorite news groups. Many people who would normally post, fear doing so because they believe that the group will suddenly disappear as soon as they post something, and be lost forever. I move for the removal of all "backbone" sites that do not wish to be true backbone sites anymore, and also for the removal of THIS news group, and have all discussions of this kind on net.flames. Final note: Look to history regarding censorship! Look at South Africa and the USSR! Now look at what people are attempting to do on the nets with changing net.*.* groups to mod.* groups! They are all the same, and in the end results in one thing: either submission by the masses to the few whom many disagree with, or a literal bloodbath.... Pick your poison.... How you choose will determine the fate of all future policys regarding the net. Be brave... speak your opinions, which may differ from mine, but be warned: I believe my own opinions, and some other people may too, and those other people may not be as nice as I am........ ****************************************************************************** * UUCP: ...!{decvax, ihnp4, allegra, vax135}!cornell!lasspvax!somner * * Arpa: somner@lasspvax.tn.cornell.edu.arpa * * Bitnet: ruuj@cornella.bitnet * * My opinions are my own and others are invited to share them! * ******************************************************************************
tim@ccice5.UUCP (Timothy G. Becker) (11/19/85)
In article <686@lasspvax.UUCP> somner@lasspvax.UUCP (David Somner) writes:
What I believe we should really consider is this: Are the
people out there who are calling themselves "backbone sites" really backbone
sites? The definition of a backbone site is a site which carries ALL the news
groups. If a backbone site does not want to carry certain groups any more,
there shouldn't all of a sudden be talk of removing a news group. Instead,
there should be talk of removing a "backbone" site. A site like that, to me,
is a "funnybone site".
Somebody's got to pay to send all this "news" around. If you want to remove
backbone sites, are you volunteering to take their place? I just read an
article from a system administrator at Tek who says their phone bills are
around the $6000/month figure.
Final note: Look to history regarding censorship! Look at South
Africa and the USSR! Now look at what people are attempting to do on
the nets with changing net.*.* groups to mod.* groups! They are all
the same, and in the end results in one thing: either submission by
the masses to the few whom many disagree with, or a literal
bloodbath.... Pick your poison.... How you choose will determine the
fate of all future policys regarding the net. Be brave... speak your
opinions, which may differ from mine, but be warned: I believe my own
opinions, and some other people may too, and those other people may
not be as nice as I am........
You're rather dramatic, but if you are really serious put your money
where your mouth is -- Become a backbone site and feed all the sites
that now get fed from backbone's that are complaining about news
volume.
Tim Becker.
..!{seismo,decvax,allegra}!rochester!ccice5!timmark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (11/20/85)
In article <953@ccice5.UUCP> tim@ccice5.UUCP (Timothy G. Becker) writes: > What I believe we should really consider is this: Are the > people out there who are calling themselves "backbone sites" really backbone > sites? The definition of a backbone site is a site which carries ALL the news > groups. Whose dictionary did you take this definition from? By your definition, most of the machines on the net are backbone sites. But you probably wouldn't consider mcvax, munnari, kaist, kddlab, or any other site outside the USA to be a backbone site, since most of them have already cut WAY back on what they get for cost reasons. (Most overseas sites only get the technical newsgroups.) The definition of a Usenet backbone site is, and has always been, a site that is listed on the list of backbone sites. Recently this has been formalized and the list is kept by Gene Spafford and posted to the net along with the other newslists stuff. Until a few years ago, it was considered good manners for a backbone site to carry everything. However, this is no longer true, it's simply too expensive. > Final note: Look to history regarding censorship! Look at South > Africa and the USSR! Anyone who would make such a comparison obviously already has his mind already made up, but for the benefit of someone who might actually take this comment seriously, let me point out the difference. Censorship is where certain information exists and there is an effort to make sure that this information does not reach the general public. That's what you see in South Africa and the USSR. Moderation (aka editing) is where a particular instance of a particular kind of communication (e.g. a newsgroup, or even an entire network) has some kind of rules about what can and can't be sent, and these rules are enforced by a human being. The strongest of these rules is generally "subject to available space", but there may be other considerations (such as avoiding repetition, condensing wordyness, avoiding obscenity, and avoiding lawsuits.) In the US, we have a concept of "freedom of the press" is one of our most cherished rights. This means that, as long as you aren't committing some other crime (e.g. advertising ten carat diamond rings for $5 and intending to pocket the money and never deliver anything) you are free to print up whatever you want ON YOUR OWN PRINTING PRESS and distribute it in any way you wish. Nothing says that somebody else who owns a printing press (e.g. the local newspaper) is obligated to print and distribute for you at their expense. (Or even at your expense, witness the Columbus newspaper which almost folded because their printing company - another Columbus newspaper - decided it wanted out of the deal.) It would be entirely reasonable if Usenet were to be totally moderated. Many would view it as a drastic improvement in quality and be happy to pay for the priviledge of reading it. However, that isn't what is being done here. The intent is to have moderated newsgroups where it will benefit the net, and to have unmoderated newsgroups where the net benefits most from that. I don't think ANYONE is planning to get rid of ALL the unmoderated groups. I expect that there will always be lots of unmoderated groups, for reasons of fast turnaround and because there aren't enough moderators. Indeed, most of the unmoderated groups are low volume and not hurting anything - they are quite useful in their current form. If something is so important that the author feels it must get out to the general public, but for some reason no moderator is willing to put it on his newsgroup, there should always be an unmoderated newsgroup it can go on. (Assuming that the information is small enough not to be a burdon on the net to pass it around.) If ALL the unmoderated groups were to go away, AND if some law were passed that prevented people who wanted their own unmoderated groups from forming their own Usenet, THEN that would be censorship. But as long as you have the right to get your information out to people somehow (even if you have to pay for it) you are not being censored. Mark Horton