mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/26/86)
Alan Wexelblat writes: >> The facts are that we pay >> the bills, so we get to decide what is worth spending OUR money on. >And here Greg has hit the nail on the head. It's golden-rule time, folks. >Them that has the gold are making the rules. Period. End discussion. >Y'see, Greg, what has annoyed Gene (and myself and others) is that when this >"reorganization" first came out, it was presented under various beneficial >guises. Along with each disguise came a series of semi-relevant arguments >(like about where net.motss or nrj belong). Each of these disguises was >ripped down by various "clever folk" for various reasons. >And now we're down to what it's really all about. The backbone SAs, by >virtue of their $$ and position, are going to do as they damn well please. >They don't have to be logical; they don't have to be consistent. They don't >have to justify themselves. Criticizing them on these grounds is pointless. While I am not as pessimistic about the SAs as this, in the essentials I am in agreement. Welcome to Usenet Inc. C. Wingate
kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) (10/02/86)
Another aspect of the truth of the matter is that the backbone
sites don't *have* to carry news at all. Without them, there
might be no net at all. I know *I* couldn't afford to foot
their bills. I can barely afford to foot my own. If they
ever turn this into a subscription service (shhhh!), well ...
Let's face it. Nothing ANYONE does is going to make EVERYONE
happy. Nothing. Not all of the changes make ME happy either.
But the scheme looks liveable and workable - certainly for now.
This is, I believe, the first such reorganization, yes?
Let's try it out, learn from it. Either we'll like it just
fine after a while - and fight like hell over the next
reorganization - or we'll learn from it, have another
reorganization - and fight like hell over *that* reorganization!
Cheers.
Kathy
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
___________
/ \
Home at / wruxi \
/ wruxh \
/ mtune \
ihnp4! < > !bakerst!kathy
kitty /
/ /
{hplabs|seismo}! --- /
/
{mcnc|rti-sel|burl}!ethos! -------
AT&T at ihnp4!wruxh!unixphil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (10/04/86)
In article <265@bakerst.UUCP> kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) writes: > >Another aspect of the truth of the matter is that the backbone >sites don't *have* to carry news at all. Without them, there >might be no net at all. If you are saying that without backbone sites the net would not exist, that is almost a tautology. If you mean that without the *current* backbone sites the net would not exist, I think that is not true. It would be slow and difficult but other sites would probably step in. For example, my company has an internet (lower case internet, not *the* Internet) running over 168,000 bps of phone lines between California and Texas. There are hassles associated with paranoia and hardware call back security systems on the modems in Texas but if the choice were the loss of USENET, I imagine something could be worked out. Another large company has at least 56,000 bps between California and Oregon. These lines are available 24 hours a day and there is very little recurring cost associated with carrying news over them at night. I am grateful for the generosity of the current backbone sites but I did want to point out there are communications paths which, although not widely known, have ample bandwidth and which could be put into service should a pressing need arise. -- Florida is so flat the children grow up thinking freeway overpasses are mountains. Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com