brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/12/85)
Let me make this clear. A poster pays system forms a larger general framework in which the current system can exist as a degenerate case. (and I mean degenerate!) This is done by allowing and encouraging collect articles. You get the current net if people say "I'll accept anything collect." But now it's on a group by group, individual by individual basis. Whatever net is naturally desired by the users eventually percolates to the top. For example, people might be glad to take many technical discussion groups collect. They might want net.politics to be poster paid, however. They might want to take most people collect and only have some users be refused collect. So, if you want the net the way it is, just accept collect. You would get one big monthly bill. If the only reason you could not justify this to management is because it would become a special bill (and not something hidden in the large corporate phone bill) then you are stealing from your management. Shame on you. But I will agree with one point. This might well mean the end of the current net in many newsgroups. Good thing, many will say. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (10/15/85)
> This is done by allowing and encouraging collect articles. You get the > current net if people say "I'll accept anything collect." But now it's > on a group by group, individual by individual basis. Whatever net is > naturally desired by the users eventually percolates to the top. I don't want to get into a flame-throwing match with you, Brad, but you still haven't answered my basic question. Let's assume for the moment (and I'm not certain I agree) that a poster-pays system is desireable. The real question is: HOW DO YOU IMPLEMENT IT? Are we going to have lots of article accounting ON TOP OF the already-inefficient checking (like, for duplicates) going on now? This would add horribly to the CPU cost of USENET. > So, if you want the net the way it is, just accept collect. You would get > one big monthly bill. If the only reason you could not justify this to > management is because it would become a special bill (and not something > hidden in the large corporate phone bill) then you are stealing from your > management. Shame on you. I suspect that by your definition, Brad, many sites are "stealing" from management. You may be right, but it's not REALISTIC to look at it that way. The FACT is probably that many sites WOULD be forced off the net by an explicit bill every month. Or the net would degenerate into a pay-for-service with ONLY technical groups. That is, perhaps, a valuable service; but it ISN'T Usenet. The problem of getting everything into explicit monetary terms like this is that we can kiss groups like net.singles goodbye, as soon as the accounting department is put in charge of deciding what should be received collect (or, for that matter, paid for for posting). The very EXISTENCE of groups like net.singles DEPENDS on the fact that the cost CANNOT be separated out that way very easily. I justify "stealing" by pointing out that there are intangible benefits to non-technical groups, which accounting types usually don't recognize because they don't look good on paper. In my case, for example, I met my fiancee through net.singles articles. I am much happier now that I met her, and my productivity at work has gone up. I'm easier to get along with at work too, thus increasing the productivity of others. These kinds of benefits of the current system would be lost if accounting types get total control. > But I will agree with one point. This might well mean the end of the > current net in many newsgroups. Good thing, many will say. I disagree (that this is a good thing). It isn't USENET. I think we need to do SOMETHING certainly; I'm in favor of moderation (a change from just a few months ago due to realism taking over and choosing the lesser of several "evils"). I think we can cut our costs DRASTICALLY by just eliminating articles that are 2/3 quotes from previous postings, questions that should have been answered in net.announce.newusers (with the followup flames and answers), and 50 answers to the same question (all, of course, containing identical quotes from the original question). And yes, I would be willing to help out by volunteering to moderate one or more groups. --Greg