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