[net.news] USENET Inc - what do YOU think

sjb (01/11/83)

The ideas of control and funding do not strike well with me.  I will
address them separately here:

1)  Allowing one group to control the net is not a pleasant idea at
    all.  PLATO (now run by CDC) has a good idea in that one organization
    cannot get more than x number of connections to it.  This means
    that no one organization will ever have the muscle to take over
    PLATO.  If we allow one organization to run the net, we will be
    at its mercy.  Further, if it pays the bills, it will have every
    right to dictate what it's paying for, i.e. direct or indirect
    censorship of the net, at the very least dictating what can and
    cannot be discussed.

2)  Requiring funding has many flaws, the worst of which is that if
    you impose dues, fees, whatever on member sites or individual
    users, you will (1) probably find that a GREAT many sites will
    immediately drop out of the net because they do not want/are not
    able to pay the costs and (2) find that people will go out of
    their way to get around paying dues.  Now, if we lose, say,
    half of the net, we might as well pack it in.  Connections,
    some of them major, will be broken and the entire topology of
    the net will be disrupted, not to mention the loss of half of
    our contributors (I refer specifically to the loss of a good
    portion of our 'technical pool')  Avoiding paying for the net
    will include forgery of articles (now a VERY simple task),
    bootlegging (as Mark said), and even forging of entire machines:
    Given the present UUCP software, I can set a machine up, call
    it anything I want (specifically the name of another machine
    on the net), and send news to any other machine on the net (since
    there is no way to prevent someone from sending to you) as if
    I were a paying machine.  If you're going to charge individual
    users, again, you will see a great many drop out.  Personally,
    I would refuse to pay a subscription fee for the net out of my
    own money and I would not except my employers to pay for it for me.
    We are NOT running a newspaper or a magazine here, and I don't
    think we should try.

In closing, I would like to say that the net is now a free format,
open grounds for discussions on any topic.  Those who wish to partake
in the discussions are free t; those who do not are free not to.
The net is not now a business, it is like a gigantic gabbing session.
No one tells anyone else what they can/cannot post, and no one tells
anyone else what they can/cannot read.  What people are suggesting
is turning the net into a business (both profit making and non profit
making)  If I want to read a paper, I'll go out and buy one, but I
can't put anything I want into that paper.  I can with the net.  If
you turn it into a paper, people will not be able to do that as freely
as they now can.

Adam

mel (01/11/83)

I favor a "service" organization, not a "controlling" one.
A professional organization with a paid staff and a Usenet
node placed to provide service to Usenix, /usr/group, Software
Tools and/or other UNIX/networking "users" organization. The
purpose of the organization would be to centralize and
standardize Usenet software, site lists, newsgroups, etc.;
and to provide publications, training, conferences, etc. as
neeed by the parent and controlling organizations (sounds
like Usenix, Inc., doesn't it?).  Funding would come from the
dues of the members of the user's organization and conferences,
publications, etc.  Obviously, Usenet would be the main channel
of communication used to direct the activities of the service
staff.  Does this sound possible ?  desirable ?
   Mel Haas  ,  houxm!mel

soreff (01/11/83)

I'd like to second most of Adam's (alice!sjb) comments about the net. I
particularly like the point that if you turn the net into a paper, with limited
posting rights (as Mark Horton has specifically suggested, in net.jokes of all
places!), then its most valuable attribute is lost. I find the net interesting
precisely because it allows arbitrary discussions. If I want to read refereed
journals I can find quite enough to choose from without adding another one.
				-Jeffrey Soreff (hplabsb!soreff)

lee (01/11/83)

Given that Usenet Inc. is created and only members can post messages
on it, who is going to pay for messages gatewayed off the Arpanet?

woods (01/12/83)

 I don't know what the final solution is, but I do know this: Requiring
membership fees of all sites (above and beyond phone bills, of course) will
eliminate virtually all non-commercial sites (like us!) from the net. I can't
see management of, say, a scientific research organization OKing funds for
such a thing, in this day of budget stringency. But what about phone bills?
Often these are hidden or not a problem due to FTS or WATS lines, whereas
a membership fee is an up-front, "real" cost. This should be borne in mind
before membership fees are implemented.

                        GREG
			ucbvax!hplabs!hao!woods
			menlo70!hao!woods
			harpo!seismo!hao!woods
			decvax!brl-bmd!hao!woods