mojo@kepler.UUCP (04/24/86)
I suppose this will be one of lots of follow-ups to this article, and it will eventually land in my Kill file. <sigh> I'll be brief. michael@ucbiris.BERKELEY.EDU writes: >In consideration of the virtues of the current state of USENET, I urge >the powers-that-be at the backbone-sites to exhaust all possible >avenues for cost cutting before further newsgroup eliminations are >implemented. I'm sure that's being done. Among other things, cheaper data transmission is coming into being via avenues like Telenet's PC Pursuit. But nothing else in your argument supports keeping the non-technical groups, or justifies paying for them. Your major argument: >USENET has the features of an electronic university. You're correct to a degree. (oops ... :-)) I think many of the groups even have "mentors" from which there is a lot to be learned. Certainly among them are Henry Spencer, Guy Harris, and lots and lots of other talent. But are they really there in the non-tech groups? Rich Rosen you say? Even so, this still doesn't justify the expense. Sure it's a "good deed". But the backbone can't even account the expense and write it off as a "contribution" to something. It's just money into a black hole with barely any visible goodwill established. My feeling: Make a new service organization and sell subscriptions. I think this is what's going to happen anyway. At least I hope it is. -- Mojo ... Morris Jones, MicroPro Product Development {lll-crg,ptsfa,dual,well,pyramid}!micropro!kepler!mojo
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (04/29/86)
In article <588@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, michael@ucbiris.berkeley.edu (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954]) writes: > A rumor has been put out that certain so called "powers-that-be" in the > backbone-sites are deciding the fate of certain non-technical > newsgroups, either to eliminate them, or to give them a second class > status. The discussion is taking place without the general knowledge > of the USENET community. It is being done in an attempt to reduce the > ever increasing costs of USENET, particularly to these backbone-sites. The cutting of news groups is always a sore point which is about an equivalent effort to balancing the federal budget. It's not just non- technical groups, even technical groups that are limitted to a particular minority interest come under fire a lot. Personally, I see a lot of the discussion between members of the backbone and UCB and BRL are the major gateways between USENET and other mail networks. I have seen lots of people bitching about things, but the only the following concrete things have taken place or seem likely to in the future: Several improperly started groups that seemed squelched by the people who have taken on the effort of providing the lists of valid groups. It would be difficult to tell the real groups from the ones accidentally or maliciously created by random users on the net. Net.flame stopped being sent accross the backbone. This group and it's undirected arguments was being posted to indiscriminately and almost invariably posted to some additional group as well. Killing net.flame was a good idea. I don't think the flames have gone away, but just headed back into the individual groups (or to net.misc when there wasn't such a group). I proposed a while back that there are certain groups that are soft of discussion/social clubs with a LOT of traffic (e.g. net.bizarre, net.rumor, net.flame). These lists would probably exist quite fine in a regional setting (since a couple of neighboring states could generate enough traffic to keep the list readers happy). However, the status of statewide distributions such as nj.all is pretty poor and ends up having to be implemented on each an every host and getting people to change software is like pulling teeth. My proposal is that such groups be tagged as REGIONAL. The only people that would have to know of such an designation are the backbone sites. REGIONAL group articles would be tranfered between all sites with the exception that they would be barred from backbone to backbone links. Hence, the backbone charges go down without major investment in convincing people to change their software and real news weenie sites could open up their own links to sites served by different backbone nodes so that they got the news from multiple regions. I mentioned this before and Rick Adams said that he was extremely in favor of it and would implement it. As for the WORLDNET analogy that you express, USENET is user a large co-op. The backbone sites provide quite a service for which they eat the charges. While it is a nice idea that they could transmit unlimited traffic, let us be realistic. Let them transfer what is economically feasible. If there is a demand for a group that they can not transfer to be passed, then other sites can coordinate to be an alternative backbone path for that one group. =Ron
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (05/01/86)
>In article <588@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, michael@ucbiris.berkeley.edu (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954]) writes: >> A rumor has been put out that certain so called "powers-that-be" in the >> backbone-sites are deciding the fate of certain non-technical >> newsgroups, either to eliminate them, or to give them a second class >> status. The discussion is taking place without the general knowledge ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> of the USENET community. It is being done in an attempt to reduce the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> ever increasing costs of USENET, particularly to these backbone-sites. I apparently missed the original article that contained this quote, but I would like to know some more details about this. If true, it would seem that the powers-that-be are hardly playing fair. -- Kenneth Arromdee | | BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM, INS_AKAA at JHUVMS -|------|- CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET -|------|- ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA -|------|- UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} -|------|- !jhunix!ins_akaa | |
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (05/04/86)
In article <2697@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Ken Arromdee) writes: >>In article <588@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, michael@ucbiris.berkeley.edu (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954]) writes: >>> A rumor has been put out that certain so called "powers-that-be" in the >>> backbone-sites are deciding the fate of certain non-technical >>> newsgroups, either to eliminate them, or to give them a second class >>> status. The discussion is taking place without the general knowledge > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> of the USENET community. It is being done in an attempt to reduce the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> ever increasing costs of USENET, particularly to these backbone-sites. > >I apparently missed the original article that contained this quote, but I >would like to know some more details about this. If true, it would seem >that the powers-that-be are hardly playing fair. powers-that-be == folks-who-foot-the-big-phone-bills so don't talk to me about "fair". However, we (me being one of the lesser powers-what-be) are preparing to air the finished proposal to the net for comments, suggestions, enhancements, changes, whatever from the net at large. Stay tuned to net.news.group... -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj
herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) (05/06/86)
In article <2697@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Ken Arromdee) writes: >>In article <588@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, michael@ucbiris.berkeley.edu (Tom Slone [(415)486-5954]) writes: >>> A rumor has been put out that certain so called "powers-that-be" in the >>> backbone-sites are deciding the fate of certain non-technical >>> newsgroups, either to eliminate them, or to give them a second class >>> status. The discussion is taking place without the general knowledge > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> of the USENET community. It is being done in an attempt to reduce the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> ever increasing costs of USENET, particularly to these backbone-sites. > >I apparently missed the original article that contained this quote, but I >would like to know some more details about this. If true, it would seem >that the powers-that-be are hardly playing fair. this newsgroup (net.news.group) has been having discussions on this topic for the past year or more. if you haven't been reading it then it's about time you did if you really care about USENET. as for fairness, it is us who have been getting the free lunch for the past 4 years. if the backbone sites say no more netnews unless someone else pays, NO-ONE can force them to do otherwise. the backbone has been forking out a LOT of dollars (on the order of about $1M collectively for 1985) to support USENET. a dollar here, a dollar there, it adds up. Herb Chong... I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet ARPA: herbie@ibm-sj.arpa, herbie%yktvmh.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu ======================================================================== DISCLAIMER: what you just read was produced by pouring lukewarm tea for 42 seconds onto 9 people chained to 6 Ouiji boards.
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (05/06/86)
> >> The discussion is taking place without the general knowledge > >> of the USENET community. It is being done in an attempt to reduce the > >> ever increasing costs of USENET, particularly to these backbone-sites. > > I apparently missed the original article that contained this quote, but I > would like to know some more details about this. If true, it would seem > that the powers-that-be are hardly playing fair. To try and discuss serious reorganization of the net with the entire net participating would be a waste of time and would rapidly degenerate into a flaming match (we know, it's been tried before). USENET is not "fair". Our site (and the other backbones) pay a disproportionate amount of the COST of this net, so it's only "fair" that we also make a disproportionate amount of the decisions. Secondly, in the current plan under discussion, NO GROUPS WOULD BE CREATED OR REMOVED, simply renamed. Every site would still be free to accept or reject any group as they choose, as they are now. Therefore the title of this article is a misnomer. No one is talking about deleting any groups. While it is true that a certain class of groups would become EASIER to drop as a whole from a site, and each site would be forced to decide to explicitly accept this new category of groups (which consists of the highest volume non-technical groups), there is nothing to stop them from doing so if they wish. Anyone who doesn't like the choices made by the backbone to not carry certain groups is free to set up their own set of connections to carry those groups (and pay the cost, too). That is the anarchical nature of USENET, and I do not see anything "unfair" in this. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "The darkness never goes, from some men's eyes"
reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) (05/07/86)
Like it or not, USENET is run by the Golden Rule: those who supply the gold make the rules. I draw your attention to the monthly readership postings to see where the gold is really going.
reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) (05/07/86)
I just realized that there is going to be a problem with switching to a new top-level set of group names, like talk.politics. Through a h
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (05/08/86)
> it would seem that the powers-that-be are hardly playing fair.
So far, there have been several responses to this from SA's at
backbone sites. Unfortunately, you have to admit that these people have a
built-in bias. I'm not on the backbone, so I don't have that bias and
would like the opportunity to throw in my two cents.
What the hell does fair mean? Is it fair that a few big sites pay
all the costs to run this network? I think not. It's great that the
backbone sites have been willing to be so generous in the past. Why does
that obligate them (legally, morally, or otherwise) to continue their
generosity regardless of the fact that the content of the net is rapidly
changing from technical discussions to sewage?
I see 2 possible scenarios for the future of the net. The first
scenario is that we have a net-wide discussion about what groups the
backbone should carry and what groups they shouldn't. This discussion will
go on and on forever and not get anywhere and eventually the backbone sites
will get fed up with the whole mess and pull the plug entirely.
Scenario number two is that the backbone sites talk between
themselves and decide what they have to do to keep the groups they consider
important going. They don't consult the net at large, they just do it. No
votes, no soliciting of opinions. Nothing that even resembles Democracy.
Autocracy at its worst.
There is, of course, a third scenario, in which the backbone
continues to shell out tons of money to keep the torrents of drivel flowing
without regard to cost.
Given that scenario number 3 won't happen, I'd much rather see
number 2 than number 1. And dammit, why shouldn't that be the proper way
to do things? Who the hell am I to tell the backbone sites what they
should or shouldn't carry? If they decide not to carry some group I want
to get and I can't arrange for an alternate feed (i.e. I'm too cheap to
shell out real money to call somebody long distance to get it), well,
that's my problem, isn't it?
According to the netiquette document I got with news, you're
supposed to wait a while before posting flames in the hope that you cool
off a bit first. I first posted this several days ago and then changed my
mind and canceled it. Unfortunately, I didn't save a copy, which is a
pity because it had a nicer ring to it the first time when the sense of
outrage was still fresh.
--
Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (05/08/86)
>>>> A rumor has been put out that certain so called "powers-that-be" in the >>>> backbone-sites are deciding the fate of certain non-technical >>>> newsgroups, either to eliminate them, or to give them a second class >>>> status. The discussion is taking place without the general knowledge >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> of the USENET community. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>...If true, it would seem that the powers-that-be are hardly playing fair. > >powers-that-be == folks-who-foot-the-big-phone-bills >so don't talk to me about "fair". My complaint of unfairness was not about the elimination of the newsgroups, it was about the fact that the general Usenet community was not told what was going on. >However, we (me being one of the lesser powers-what-be) are preparing >to air the finished proposal to the net for comments, suggestions, >enhancements, changes, whatever from the net at large. Stay tuned >to net.news.group... After you have a finished proposal, it seems that it would be much more difficult for the Usenet community to get any changes made. Why didn't you say what you were discussing, WHILE you were discussing it, instead of after? Also, I get the impression that this will happen in a few weeks. In other words, after University students who read netnews are in many cases home for the summer. If you had aired some of the discussion while you were creating the proposal, such students (such as me) would get a chance to respond to it. As it is, they do not. -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (05/08/86)
I have no real trouble with whatever is going on by the backbone sites (I don't think, but at least at a base philosophical level it's hard to argue so I may as well concur.) On the other hand, I still feel it's frustrating that a lot of this would be unnecessary if the backbone sites *required* higher speed connections, are the 2400 (and 4800, 9600) baud modems that now work on asynch/voice lines really that hard to use effectively? It seems from what people say about costs they could pay for themselves quickly. What's the problem? If it's initial costs maybe we could pass the hat around the net. If we could solve the problem with technology why bother with all these politics etc? -Barry Shein, Boston University
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (05/09/86)
>as for fairness, it is us who have been getting the free lunch for the >past 4 years. if the backbone sites say no more netnews unless someone >else pays, NO-ONE can force them to do otherwise. I'd like to add to this... The "backbone" is *not* some kind of monopoly. There is no reason that other sites couldn't set up their own "backbone" which would carry all the newsgroups that they want. Except *that* would cost them real *money*, instead of being able to take advantage of the generosity of the current backbone sites. The only reason that there's only 1 backbone is because everybody else is too dang cheap to develop, maintain, and pay the phone bills for alternate connections. So to all the gripers out there, I say: If you don't like the way the current backbone sites run their operations, develop your own net backbone. Or else accept whatever freebies that the current backbone sites provide with some degree of appreciation and grace, eh? -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {elrond,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
tuba@ur-tut.UUCP (Jon Krueger) (05/12/86)
In article <575@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > . . . are the 2400 (and 4800, 9600) baud modems that now work >on asynch/voice lines really that hard to use effectively? >What's the problem? One problem, at 9600 baud, single character interrupts start eating your vax. At even higher rates, other i/o architectures begin to eat host resources. Another problem, disk storage and i/o bandwidth aren't free either. >If it's initial costs maybe we could pass the hat around the net. What do you think this is, token ring :-) :-) Just kidding, I agree with you, only more so. To those who want to save their favorite newsgroup, I say: if it's worth posting to and reading from, it's worth paying for. I'm sure any backbone site will take your cash, check, or credit card. If you don't know how much to send, just ask the backbone site administrator what your postings are costing him. If you want to lower your bills by buying him a better modem, I'm sure he'll cut a P.O. for your signature. And if you don't want to pay, please don't complain about how the backbone sites manage net traffic. If you're not willing to pay the real costs of your traffic, clearly it isn't worth it to you; why should it be to anyone else? Flames to me personally: SEND MAIL DON'T POST. -- Jon Krueger uucp: {seismo, allegra, decvax, cmcl2, topaz, harvard}!rochester!ur-tut!tuba BITNET: TUBA@UORDBV