reiter@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Ehud Reiter) (05/29/91)
In article <1991May28.204751.11309@news.larc.nasa.gov> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes: > Still, a good telephone system is essential to modern business. I think >that having phone lines and preferably a local exchange is more important >than computer communications. Start with the easy stuff first; it's quite >easy to set up local phone systems and probably not all that expensive. I remember reading in one of the VITA newsletters about using computer communications (via radio links, I think) in Africa. I may not be remembering this 100% correctly, but I think the point was that in some cases it was better to use the available radio links for computer mail instead of voice links, partly because if the radio links got very noisy (which happened a lot), voice messages would be lost or misinterpreted, while computer messages would just be retransmitted with more error correction until they got through. So, perhaps computer mail is a good way to make the most efficient use of a low-quality telephone or radio-link system? -- Ehud Reiter (e.reiter@edinburgh.ac.uk)
rv@deins.Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Ruediger Volk) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May28.204751.11309@news.larc.nasa.gov> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes: > Still, a good telephone system is essential to modern business. I think >that having phone lines and preferably a local exchange is more important >than computer communications. Start with the easy stuff first; it's quite >easy to set up local phone systems and probably not all that expensive. Oh yes, a good telephone system is essential to modern business! But if you have a bad and overloaded one (and slow and unreliable postal service) there are cases were carrying some of communications by a computer networking service (using the bad phone system you have!) will give you a leading edge; at least that's one of the lessons I learned from discussions with colleagues from Eastern Europe over the last year. BTW from network school in Dec. 90 targeted mainly atnetwork school in Dec. 90 targeted mainly at This may seem strange - and needs and available infrastructure in third world countries may be different (and certainly vary) - but just consider your computer busy trying to establish a connection during all of the night to relay some messages... Of course you need to have at least some parts of a wrotten phone system... The difference between former Eastern Block and third world often may be that the former usually has some internal infrastructure however wrotten but very bad international connectivity (quite bad even between the old allies) while the reverse maybe true for quite a number of third world countries. Anyway at a network school in Dec. 90 targeted mainly at networking staff from Eastern Europe but also attended by a few colleagues from other continents I found examples where the situtation seemed to be quite similar in countries that inherited their phone system from the (e.g.) British some decades ago or that had their phone systems maintained for some decades under the auspices of communist internationalism... Ruediger Volk Universitaet Dortmund, Informatik IRB Postfach 500 500 D-W-4600 Dortmund 50 Germany E-Mail: rv@Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE (or rv@unido.uucp, rv@unido.bitnet) Phone: +49 231 755 4760 Fax: +49 231 755 2386
avg@hq.demos.su (Vadim Antonov) (06/01/91)
In <3506@laura.UUCP> rv@deins.Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Ruediger Volk) writes: >Oh yes, a good telephone system is essential to modern business! Can't agree more :-) >But if you have a bad and overloaded one (and slow and unreliable postal >service) there are cases were carrying some of communications by a computer >networking service (using the bad phone system you have!) will give you >a leading edge; at least that's one of the lessons I learned from discussions >with colleagues from Eastern Europe over the last year. Our humble experience of running the biggest public computer network in Soviet Union shows that there is a lot of possibilites to use old technology to carry digital data. For example we're running stable 9600 bps links over copper wires leading via our phone exchange which was installed in 1929 (Telebit's PEP modems, of course). V.22bis works reasonably well over noisy lines but V.32 sucks. I've got an impression that reasonable UUCP-based network could be established everywhere in the world. Our current average delivery delays is about four-five hours; we're working on reducing it by replacing backbone links with 9600 bps IP links over IP lines. Satellite technology is still expensive and therefore requires existing domestic delivery nets to split the expenses. Still, we're looking for new solutions in this field; for example one of the most advanced Soviet projects suggests using of on-table flat satellite anttennas (not dishes but phased antenna arrays (sp?)) providing sustained 9600 bps througoutput. This project includes launching stationar satellite covering Europe and practically the whole territory of Soviet Union and producing about 15000 such devices a year. Technically it already works, phinancial status is still unclear (in any case it'll be much cheaper than existing Western satellite links). Currently it works four hours a day via a military communicaton satellite. INMARSAT is really expensive and cannot support permanent links with sustained througoutput - it was designed to carry emergency information; not the daily dataflow. (Ok, at the war time it's useful). Ex-Eastern Bloc countries as a rule have rather advanced "closed" communication systems which were used by communist party officials and secret police services (like so-called "vertushka", the government telephone system in SU). These systems tend to became commercially available (for example ISKRA-2 in Moscow, the net of digital phone exchanges intended to replace "vertushka", now it's the business phone exchange). These phone networks are practically useless as means of mass voice communications (there are only few "vertushka" phones in each city) but can be quite useful for backbone UUCP or dial-up IP links between regional e-mail nodes. There are some industrial communication systems (like the one of Ministry of Oil and Gas Industry); they could be used for computer communications as well. HAM radio cannot be considered a vital alternative to surface phone links due to small bandwidth and low reliability, the legal status of such link in SU is unclear. >This may seem strange - and needs and available infrastructure in third >world countries may be different (and certainly vary) - but just consider >your computer busy trying to establish a connection during all of the night >to relay some messages... It's usually much simplier - your computer forwards the message to a city backbone over domestic phone system - usually it's simple and does not consume lots of time; then the backbone delivers your message using one of the ways I described before to other Soviet/Western backbone. No need to dial through adverse long-distance links... >Of course you need to have at least some parts of a wrotten phone system... Hm. Are there any places without phone systems? >The difference between former Eastern Block and third world often may be >that the former usually has some internal infrastructure however wrotten >but very bad international connectivity (quite bad even between the old allies) >while the reverse maybe true for quite a number of third world countries. Agreed (cannot say much about third world countries). Anyway the main problem we got is the lack of qualified and initiative people to establish regional nodes and keep them operating. Still we found the huge demand for both international and domestic communications (hm, we expected that the most part of e-mail traffic will be international but now we have slightly bigger domestic traffic). The networking society in SU didn't exist a half of a year ago and we have to spend lots of time for missionarie activity - talking with people to make them to break their own iron curtains and to open to the world. Amazing but really tiring :-) Cheers, Vadim Antonov DEMOS, Moscow, USSR
cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) (06/02/91)
In article <1991Jun1.124059.8093@hq.demos.su> avg@hq.demos.su (Vadim Antonov) writes: >Our humble experience of running the biggest public computer network >in Soviet Union shows that there is a lot of possibilites to use >old technology to carry digital data. For example we're running stable >9600 bps links over copper wires leading via our phone exchange which >was installed in 1929 (Telebit's PEP modems, of course). V.22bis works >reasonably well over noisy lines but V.32 sucks. > >I've got an impression that reasonable UUCP-based network could be >established everywhere in the world. Our current average delivery delays is >about four-five hours; we're working on reducing it by replacing >backbone links with 9600 bps IP links over IP lines. Thus poor phone networks are not a major issue. >Anyway the main problem we got is the lack of qualified and initiative >people to establish regional nodes and keep them operating. But skilled labor for sysadmin or sysop work IS a major issue. These are the points I tried to make before, but nobody bit. If Vadim's experience and my theorizing about this are correct, shouldn't we focus on how to reduce the labor requirements for store and forward email network management? It is already commonplace for packet network nodes to be unattended pieces of equipment like any other telephone exchange, with remote supervision through the network itself and personnel on site only when required to replace a circuit board etc. Not long ago it used to be normal for even ordinary telephone exchanges to have permanent on site technicians. Corporate LANs are being designed for remote network management. Surely it must be feasible to design store and forward email networks for remote network management as well. The building blocks are already available, even including Management Information Bases designed to allow remote monitoring of such paramaters as available disk space and page buffers and mail routing as well as the usual LAN paramaters for packet throughput and packet routing etc. Why on earth should a skilled sysadmin be required at every node? Once this problem is resolved, massive expansion both in developed countries and developing countries becomes quite straight forward. The equipment itself is already very cheap and all costs except network management are declining rapidly. -- Opinions disclaimed (Authoritative answer from opinion server) Header reply address wrong. Use cmf851@csc2.anu.edu.au
ccfj@hippo.ru.ac.za (F. Jacot Guillarmod) (06/02/91)
In <1991Jun2.052408.21005@newshost.anu.edu.au> cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes: >In article <1991Jun1.124059.8093@hq.demos.su> avg@hq.demos.su >(Vadim Antonov) writes: >> [discussion about uucp nets over old exchanges in Soviet Union deleted] >Thus poor phone networks are not a major issue. There is a difference between poor phone networks and atrocious phone networks. Also, try motivating for an unbarred external telephone line at a third world university...... they are in great demand, but not neccessarily for data comms purposes ;-) The reason for this is simple: with some PTT's it can take several years after an application for a telephone or dedicated line is made before the service is installed. Also, what do you do if your dedicated line goes on the blink? Getting it fixed can be a trying exercise. Somebody from the University of XXXXXXXX was down here a few months ago, and mentioned that it was easier to phone a colleague in London and ask the colleague to phone his wife across town to pass on a message. >But skilled labor for sysadmin or sysop work IS a major issue. >These are the points I tried to make before, but nobody bit. Just an observation - this newsgroup appears to be linked to a mailing list - is it working reliably? i.e. are postings to the newsgroup making it out to the mailing list? >If Vadim's experience and my theorizing about this are correct, >shouldn't we focus on how to reduce the labor requirements for >store and forward email network management? >Why on earth should a skilled sysadmin be required at every node? >Once this problem is resolved, massive expansion both in developed >countries and developing countries becomes quite straight forward. >The equipment itself is already very cheap and all costs except >network management are declining rapidly. Because, as I tried to point out in an earlier note, email/networking is a culture that develops in non-obvious ways. Plunking down maintenance free (or remotely maintainable) hardware and software somewhere and then getting it linked via a dedicated satellite link (or whatever) does not guarantee it is going to be used. How do you give potential users access to the central email hub? Via a tcp/ip based local area network? Dumb terminals into a multiport serial card? Who is going to maintain these links and terminals? Similarly, who is going to provide user training for the mail software? For a typical Un*x system the email users will have to know their way around vi, and somebody is going to have to register users and provide rudimentary system administration support (backups etc). These are all ongoing problems, and if an organisation doesn't have somebody on site that can deal with day to day problems, email/networking just isn't going to be viable. For email/networking to take off, you need the following ingredients: - some pre-existing computing environment with on-site skills to keep things moving through minor crises, and to provide some form of ongoing end-user training. - a desire to communicate electronically (it helps considerably to have an internal, isolated email system). Having one guy in the Philosophy department who wants international email doesn't count... - some easily implemented method of installing wide area networking (such as uucp or TCP/IP using PCRoute over 9600 baud slip). - some infrastructure capable of noticing and dealing with comms carrier faults. - support from internal management or administration for the concept of WAN, for footing the bill or dealing with those who will be footing it. Leave out any one of these five ingredients and you have a flop on your hands, irrespective of the amount of technology or money that has been poured in. If you have the first four, you have still got a flop (but you are getting close). Add the fifth and you have a fighting chance of getting somewhere. Your scenario assumes that the developing world is clamouring to get onto or into networking. The only people clamouring are first world faculty on secondment and who want to keep in touch with things back home. Isn't this a form of imperialism or colonialism? ;-) -- F.F. Jacot Guillarmod - Computing Centre - Rhodes University Artillery Road - P.O Box 94 - Grahamstown - 6140 - South Africa Internet: ccfj@hippo.ru.ac.za Phone: +27 [0]461 22023 xt 284 uucp: ..!uunet!m2xenix!quagga!hippo!ccfj Fax: +27 [0]461 25049
cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) (06/04/91)
In article <ccfj.675874022@hippo> ccfj@hippo.ru.ac.za (F. Jacot Guillarmod) writes: [>> are quotes from me] >>Thus poor phone networks are not a major issue. > >There is a difference between poor phone networks and atrocious phone >networks. Also, try motivating for an unbarred external telephone line >at a third world university...... they are in great demand, but not >neccessarily for data comms purposes ;-) The reason for this is simple: >with some PTT's it can take several years after an application for a >telephone or dedicated line is made before the service is installed. >Also, what do you do if your dedicated line goes on the blink? Getting >it fixed can be a trying exercise. I still say it isn't a major issue because some aspects are easily resolved while other aspects cannot be resolved at all. Thus we can easily implement software that will make using atrocious phone networks merely more costly than using high quality networks, rather than so qualitatively different that it is a separate "major issue" for establishing email and news access. On the other hand we can't do much about the low telephone penetration and related problems like long delays providing telephone service so that isn't a major issue worth discussing either (unless you are claiming that it is an absolute bar to productive use of email and news in developing countries). >>Why on earth should a skilled sysadmin be required at every node? >>Once this problem is resolved, massive expansion both in developed >>countries and developing countries becomes quite straight forward. >>The equipment itself is already very cheap and all costs except >>network management are declining rapidly. >Because, as I tried to point out in an earlier note, email/networking is >a culture that develops in non-obvious ways. Plunking down maintenance >free (or remotely maintainable) hardware and software somewhere and then >getting it linked via a dedicated satellite link (or whatever) does not >guarantee it is going to be used. I agree, but I believe there are sufficient benefits that it WOULD be used if it was indeed useable by just "plunking down" cheap maintenance free or remotely maintainable hardware and software. On the other hand I am doubtful that there is a sufficient "critical mass" of potential users to overcome the additional difficulties caused by the absence of such cheap maintenance free or remotely maintainable hardware and software. In developed countries there are universities that can provide email and news access without such hardware and software and there are BBSes with volunteer sysops drawing on a substantial population of computer literate people and computer hobbyists. Developing countries lack that infrastructure so they especially need hardware and software that can just be "plunked down", which is not yet available. > How do you give potential users >access to the central email hub? Via a tcp/ip based local area network? >Dumb terminals into a multiport serial card? Who is going to maintain >these links and terminals? Similarly, who is going to provide user >training for the mail software? For a typical Un*x system the email >users will have to know their way around vi, and somebody is going to >have to register users and provide rudimentary system administration >support (backups etc). These are all ongoing problems, and if an >organisation doesn't have somebody on site that can deal with day to day >problems, email/networking just isn't going to be viable. These are the sort of issues that are currently dealt with by skilled sysadmins on site. They are of major importance and often overlooked. I totally agree with the importance you attach to them as I see them as the main problem. Yet word-processing is widespread on cheap personal computers without any more than telephone support and tutorial texts (and even without those). I believe it is technically feasible to provide email and news access in such a "transparent" and "user friendly" way that it appears to be merely an extension of ordinary wordprocessing that can be used by anybody with a computer. I also believe until that is done it will be very difficult to expand far beyond the present circles involved in developed countries or to get a real foothold in developing countries. >For email/networking to take off, you need the following ingredients: > >- some pre-existing computing environment with on-site skills to keep > things moving through minor crises, and to provide some form of > ongoing end-user training. You certainly do at present (and I think Sue underestimates the importance of the time that BBS sysops spend on this). But it isn't required for wordprocessing and it isn't required for using a telephone or a fax machine (although telephones used to be accompanied by "telephone operators"). I believe email and news will really "take off" only when that problem is solved, NOT by providing such an environment with on-site skills, but by eliminating the NEED for it, just as the need for telephone operators has been eliminated. >- a desire to communicate electronically (it helps considerably to have > an internal, isolated email system). Having one guy in the Philosophy > department who wants international email doesn't count... In one sense there is less demand for this in developing countries. But if one thinks instead of a desire to communicate in writing and have access to print media in the most efficient, cheap and fast way possible, then the potential demand in developing countries is enormous. Literacy is often far ahead of economic development generally and computer communications are becoming cheaper as well as faster than print media. TV is already quite widespread in developing countries and adding cheap computers to a basic TV set as a terminal is not that expensive. (The low telephone penetration is a much bigger problem so it is worth exploring the use of email and news software even without telephones - by diskette exchange etc). >- some easily implemented method of installing wide area networking > (such as uucp or TCP/IP using PCRoute over 9600 baud slip). As you note, potentially suitable methods are available. I maintain the biggest problem lies in WAN management rather than protocol implementation. >- some infrastructure capable of noticing and dealing with comms carrier > faults. Again, this relates to network management. >- support from internal management or administration for the concept of > WAN, for footing the bill or dealing with those who will be footing > it. Desirable, but PCs sneaked in behind the backs of unsupportive management and actively hostile MIS departments. If the PCs and telephones are in place, and modems are reasonably cheap, why couldn't email and news software as convenient as typical wordprocessors and spreadsheets infiltrate despite unsupportive management too? Again, there is a MUCH bigger problem if on-site technical support is needed since users can't easily just provide that themselves. Provide network access as a means of reducing fax bills or as an extension to wordprocessing that reduces postage bills, and watch it take off from there. The point is you can't do that at the moment because network access currently just isn't that simple. >Your scenario assumes that the developing world is clamouring to get >onto or into networking. Nope I just assume that since there is LESS demand in the developing world, it is MORE important there to remove barriers like the need for skilled sysadmins - especially since they are HARDER to provide in developing countries. -- Opinions disclaimed (Authoritative answer from opinion server) Header reply address wrong. Use cmf851@csc2.anu.edu.au
ccfj@hippo.ru.ac.za (F. Jacot Guillarmod) (06/06/91)
In <1991Jun4.044628.13092@newshost.anu.edu.au> cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes: >On the other hand we can't do much about the low telephone penetration >and related problems like long delays providing telephone service so >that isn't a major issue worth discussing either (unless you are >claiming that it is an absolute bar to productive use of email and news in >developing countries). OK, I'll give you that poor comms infrastructure is not necessarily an absolute bar to somebody wanting badly enough to get networked. It is however, yet another hurdle to be overcome, and is going to cost time and money, and does often prove fatal to the exercise. > [discussion on user training, maintenance, backups etc zapped to save > bandwidth] >These are the sort of issues that are currently dealt with by skilled >sysadmins on site. They are of major importance and often overlooked. >I totally agree with the importance you attach to them as I see them >as the main problem. > [analogy with word-processing on cheap PC's] This gets back to my original argument about the need for having an institutional or organisational culture that supports such things. It is easy to follow the crowd and get support from other users if they are all using PC's, but how do you get bootstrapped into this if it is still standard practice to make use of say electric typewriters? > I believe it is technically feasible to provide email and news >access in such a "transparent" and "user friendly" way that it appears >to be merely an extension of ordinary wordprocessing that can be used >by anybody with a computer. I also believe until that is done it will >be very difficult to expand far beyond the present circles involved >in developed countries or to get a real foothold in developing countries. A sort of 'email/news engine' - just plug it in, connect your telebit netblazer to the satellite transceiver and you have instant TCP/IP to the Internet? It's definitely feasible right now, if a bit costly. As an aside, it might be productive to spin off a separate thread on proposals for how something like this could be put together using existing technology. Costing would be interesting. >>- some pre-existing computing environment with on-site skills to keep >> things moving through minor crises, and to provide some form of >> ongoing end-user training. >I believe email and news will really "take off" only when that >problem is solved, NOT by providing such an environment with >on-site skills, but by eliminating the NEED for it, just as the >need for telephone operators has been eliminated. OK. But then to resuscitate an argument that went on quite some time ago in comp.dcom.telecom, you need to use the analogy of fax vs email. Fax fulfils your requirements of ease of use and wide availability. Email still suffers from its heritage as something that started in high tech computer shops, where networking was a means of interactively using a mainframe to run some or other program, and only comparatively recently branched into news/mail - the syntax and mechanisms still show traces of IBM 360 Job Control... with the support infrastructure that had to go with it. What you are looking for is the next step up the evolutionary ladder. And don't say X.400! >>- a desire to communicate electronically >But if one thinks instead of a desire to communicate in writing and >have access to print media in the most efficient, cheap and fast >way possible, then the potential demand in developing countries is >enormous. Communication via 'sneaker-net' - i.e. physical transport of floppies, is a possibility, sure, but it imposes other requirements - efficient courier services for example, and lacks the immediacy of the type of discussion we are now having. You may as well write a letter. I am not arguing against the desirability of opening up communication to all and sundry. The benefits definitely exist.... but there are fundamental technical problems which can possibly be overcome, and cultural problems that could be more intractable. >>- support from internal management or administration for the concept of >> WAN, for footing the bill or dealing with those who will be footing >> it. >Desirable, but PCs sneaked in behind the backs of unsupportive management and >actively hostile MIS departments. If the PCs and telephones are in >place, and modems are reasonably cheap, why couldn't email and news >software as convenient as typical wordprocessors and spreadsheets >infiltrate despite unsupportive management too? Because an international newsfeed, even a small one, costs lots of money. :-( It is impossible to 'hide' such costs in any realistic way. Also, look at the recent furore as regards the pros and cons of BITFTP closing down - there are plenty of guys in the developed world who can't handle the type of running costs involved. >>Your scenario assumes that the developing world is clamouring to get >>onto or into networking. >Nope I just assume that since there is LESS demand in the developing >world, it is MORE important there to remove barriers like the need >for skilled sysadmins - especially since they are HARDER to provide >in developing countries. Well, both you and I see the benefits, but isn't this tinged (and here my heritage as a South African comes into play) by a desire to impose something 'worthwhile' in a western sense on countries and people that quite possibly have a different world view? Are we justified in assuming that say Zaire would in some way be a better place because it had network access? I know that this is straying from the point a bit, but perhaps it is not totally unrelated to the reasons why many developing countries don't seem to be too bothered. The way networking is now, you have to 'pay your dues' and serve an apprenticeship by struggling to get to grips with a wide variety of technological and political odds and ends, the end result being the ability to conduct this discussion in this forum. But that is part and parcel of computing evolution. A few years down the road, it may well be possible to have a turnkey 'email engine' that can be plunked down anywhere in the world without requiring local system and network administration - but it will, of neccessity, be using a different paradigm to the one we are using now. -- F.F. Jacot Guillarmod PO Box 94 \ | ccfj@hippo.ru.ac.za Computing Centre Grahamstown 6140 \ / +27 [0]461 22023 xt 284 Rhodes University South Africa ;___*/ 33 18 30 S | 26 31 45 E
cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) (06/09/91)
In article <ccfj.676148819@hippo> ccfj@hippo.ru.ac.za (F. Jacot Guillarmod) writes: >This gets back to my original argument about the need for having an >institutional or organisational culture that supports such things. It >is easy to follow the crowd and get support from other users if they are >all using PC's, but how do you get bootstrapped into this if it is still >standard practice to make use of say electric typewriters? I believe email and news will only penetrate where the use of PCs for wordprocessing has already penetrated. That however will be quite extensive as they are both cheaper and more convenient than electric typewriters. Continuing use of electric typewriters in developing countries is merely transient. (If nothing else, they will run out of spare parts before long :-) >A sort of 'email/news engine' - just plug it in, connect your telebit >netblazer to the satellite transceiver and you have instant TCP/IP to >the Internet? It's definitely feasible right now, if a bit costly. No need for a satellite transceiver and netblazer to achieve TCP/IP to the Internet. Just the PSTN, and an ordinary Trailblazer or other high speed modem (perhaps even a relatively cheap fax modem with lots of forward error correction, though the high cost of international calls makes it more economical to lay out the capital for a better modem). People are doing it now with FidoNet and UUCP to developing countries. Satellites could dramatically reduce costs, especially for large newsfeeds and there have already been extensive experiments with SCPC satellite receivers that are just a PC card that costs about as much as a high speed modem for a 9600 bps downlink. (Uplink may as well still be via PSTN). However satellites are not essential for getting started. Nor is TCP/IP internet access - batched file transfers are adequate for email and news. If TCP/IP internet access WAS required it can be achieved much more cheaply than with a netblazer, just using SLIP or PPP software on an ordinary PC. >As an aside, it might be productive to spin off a separate thread on >proposals for how something like this could be put together using >existing technology. Costing would be interesting. Useful for IMPROVING things in that area, but feasability has ALREADY been proved. The problems are in administering the email and news system GIVEN an adequate communications link. >Email still suffers from its heritage as something that started in high >tech computer shops, where networking was a means of interactively using >a mainframe to run some or other program, and only comparatively >recently branched into news/mail - the syntax and mechanisms still show >traces of IBM 360 Job Control... with the support infrastructure that >had to go with it. > >What you are looking for is the next step up the evolutionary ladder. EXACTLY. But it isn't just a matter of "heritage". Email is STILL primarily used where technically oriented sysadmins or sysops are readily available and therefore ease of use and especially ease of administration have not been critical issues. They immediately become critical issues when you want to move outside academic and computer literate circles. >And don't say X.400! X400 in no way prescribes the user or system administrator interfaces and in that sense is irrelevant. Current implementations are even more "research" oriented than ordinary email and add the confusion of gatewaying between X400 and internet standards. However I believe that by providing a well defined and reliable underlying message handling service and directory service, with all the functionality needed, X400 and X500 certainly will play a key role in the next step up the evolutionary ladder. At least in designing improved User and Administrator interfaces we will have a clear specification of precisely WHAT the interface is interfacing TO. >Communication via 'sneaker-net' - i.e. physical transport of floppies, >is a possibility, sure, but it imposes other requirements - efficient >courier services for example, and lacks the immediacy of the type of >discussion we are now having. You may as well write a letter. That severely limits the usefulness of email without telephones. But it still leaves open considerable possibilities for news without telephones. "You may as well publish a circular and send it to everyone who might be interested" is the alternative option to newsgroups and transporting floppies may well be more attractive. Even a delayed one way news feed by airmailed floppies and tapes could be useful as a source of technical information for developing countries. Supplemented with email for asking questions it could be very useful indeed. >>>- support from internal management or administration for the concept of >>> WAN, for footing the bill or dealing with those who will be footing >>> it. > >>Desirable, but PCs sneaked in behind the backs of unsupportive management and >>actively hostile MIS departments. If the PCs and telephones are in >>place, and modems are reasonably cheap, why couldn't email and news >>software as convenient as typical wordprocessors and spreadsheets >>infiltrate despite unsupportive management too? > >Because an international newsfeed, even a small one, costs lots of >money. :-( It is impossible to 'hide' such costs in any realistic way. >Also, look at the recent furore as regards the pros and cons of BITFTP >closing down - there are plenty of guys in the developed world who can't >handle the type of running costs involved. International email is significantly cheaper than international airmail (let alone the costs of telex and fax that are widely used in developing countries). Inwards news is more expensive but the costs are not dramatic compared with the benefits. Internal phone costs within developed countries are so low that often there are no proper administrative arrangements to minimize and share costs by properly organizing feeds. Since international phone costs are several times higher (though not an order of magnitude higher), such arrangements become more important for developing countries and satellite broadcasting becomes more attractive. But it is always possible to add some news whenever it is possible to use email. There are lots more situations that cannot handle the administrative costs of providing a sysadmin or sysop than situations where the telephone costs are prohibitive. >Well, both you and I see the benefits, but isn't this tinged (and here >my heritage as a South African comes into play) by a desire to impose >something 'worthwhile' in a western sense on countries and people that >quite possibly have a different world view? Are we justified in >assuming that say Zaire would in some way be a better place because it >had network access? I know that this is straying from the point a bit, >but perhaps it is not totally unrelated to the reasons why many >developing countries don't seem to be too bothered. If they don't want it they will reject it. Only a westernized elite can benefit initially but offering access cannot be less justified than neglecting to offer it. Colonialist/imperialist railways and schools were a "good thing". There is a wide consensus that providing international telecommunications to developing countries is a "good thing" (and there are even special Intelsat discounts etc to encourage this). Adding email and news seems a trivial extension. News can become something like providing access to current serials and libraries which are also generally regarded as a "good thing". A general discussion on Eurocentrism and cultural relativism etc probably belongs elsewhere. If such a discussion were unavoidable here, I would take a position similar to Marx in "The British Rule in India". >The way networking is now, you have to 'pay your dues' and serve an >apprenticeship by struggling to get to grips with a wide variety of >technological and political odds and ends, the end result being the >ability to conduct this discussion in this forum. But that is part and >parcel of computing evolution. A few years down the road, it may well >be possible to have a turnkey 'email engine' that can be plunked down >anywhere in the world without requiring local system and network >administration - but it will, of neccessity, be using a different >paradigm to the one we are using now. It will be using the paradigm we are constructing now. -- Opinions disclaimed (Authoritative answer from opinion server) Header reply address wrong. Use cmf851@csc2.anu.edu.au
ccfj@hippo.ru.ac.za (F. Jacot Guillarmod) (06/11/91)
In <1991Jun8.194822.2332@newshost.anu.edu.au> cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes: >No need for a satellite transceiver and netblazer to achieve TCP/IP >to the Internet. Just the PSTN, and an ordinary Trailblazer or other high speed >modem (perhaps even a relatively cheap fax modem with lots of forward error >correction, though the high cost of international calls makes it more >economical to lay out the capital for a better modem). People are doing >it now with FidoNet and UUCP to developing countries. That's us alright (the Fidonet/uucp/developing country bit). And yes, it can work just fine. But we go back again to "just the PSTN, and..". Like it or not, this is one of the key requirements. >Useful for IMPROVING things in that area, but feasability has >ALREADY been proved. The problems are in administering the email >and news system GIVEN an adequate communications link. Oh no... you don't slip out of it that easily... ;-) You aren't given an adequate comms link. This was the assumption that initially started my diatribe about why developing countries haven't already popped up all over the net. It is, in my opinion, the single most important reason. But I give you that there are a large number of countries out there with 'adequate' comms that aren't yet up and running. >>And don't say X.400! I was teasing... but half serious, in that X.400/X.500 seem bound together with the way a PSTN sees their future market. I see X.400 taking off only when PSTN's can offer it as a commercial subscriber product. Of course, at that point, many of the problems we are talking about disappear because you can then get an email service in the same way you get a telephone. But it isn't a short or even medium term scenario. >International email is significantly cheaper than international airmail >(let alone the costs of telex and fax that are widely used in developing >countries). Inwards news is more expensive but the costs are not >dramatic compared with the benefits. >There are >lots more situations that cannot handle the administrative costs >of providing a sysadmin or sysop than situations where the >telephone costs are prohibitive. I made a point several messages ago about internal (within a country) networking being one of the pre-requisites for email/news to 'take off'. Cost sharing is one of them - it is a hell of a lot easier to justify an expensive international feed if you can somehow maximize the number of people benefitting from it. Make no mistake, dialup uucp over international links costs two orders of magnitude more than you can 'hide' in a departmental budget. The other point about internal networking, which I didn't belabour too much at the time, is that it provides exactly the kind of de-centralised support you are talking about. It becomes easy to obtain assistance from a site in the next town if you already have a rudimentary link in place. The ease with which a site can bootstrap itself into more sophisticated networking has to be seen to be appreciated. But you need that first tiny link. >A general discussion on Eurocentrism and >cultural relativism etc probably belongs elsewhere. If such a >discussion were unavoidable here, I would take a position similar to >Marx in "The British Rule in India". I was probably overdoing the descriptive bits about another unaddressed problem - i.e. why, given perfect software/hardware/comms, email isn't just going to happen. It is (currently) a Eurocentric phenomenon, and even there it afflicts only the subset that is computer 'literate'. OK, so let's try and reach some sort of consensus. Here are my modified views: 1 - good, or adequate communications infrastructure is desirable - but there are mechanisms available for use in situations where comms is abysmal. But in the case of abysmal comms, you need a very strong desire to communicate to overcome your disadvantages. 2 - a major problem is the configuration and maintenance of an 'email/news engine' (hardware+o/s+enduser software) - but with a bit of thought and care it may be possible to put together some sort of turnkey system that could just about be dropped by parachute with a note on the power cord saying "plug me in here". That's not intended to sound facetious - I reckon most of us reading this group could get quite far down the road to putting together and configuring just such a system. 3 - user education is the crux, in two senses - firstly as to "How do I send a message" and secondly to address the problem of "Why the hell should I bother about sending messages". These two educational tasks are vastly different in scope, but both need to be addressed - in different contexts. The first is a technical problem, and the second is 'political'. 4 - you can't do it alone - you need a support group of some sort. By this I mean a site in a developed country that is well connected to existing networks and that is prepared to allow you to connect up to them (and possibly bear the costs of dialup as a gesture of goodwill towards the developing country) and is prepared to do a lot of initial baby sitting. None of that sounds impossible, does it? I can think, offhand, of several countries around here that could benefit instantly if such a 'package' could be put together. However, few sites are altruistic enough to spend the time and money required. Perhaps they should be. -- F.F. Jacot Guillarmod PO Box 94 \ | ccfj@hippo.ru.ac.za Computing Centre Grahamstown 6140 \ / +27 461 22023 xt 284 Rhodes University South Africa ;___*/ 33 18 30 S | 26 31 45 E
trifid@agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks) (06/12/91)
Ah now...this is much better! Not "it's impossible" but "How can it be accomplished"... As to the various steps...you solve the one about "why do I want to do this?" and all the others will fall into place. (This is why I posted my personal experience and that of my SysOp friend....motivation was all it took!) I think in the third world education via netmail/email might be a viable motivation. Even though I'm not getting any credits for reading news, I've found it very educational, and I suspect a formal education scheme could be very successful where needed. You have to find out what the people perceive as their need, and not leap to Euro-centric conclusions, though... Suze Hammond trifid@agora.rain.com
cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) (06/12/91)
In article <ccfj.676580159@hippo> ccfj@hippo.ru.ac.za (F. Jacot Guillarmod) writes: >In <1991Jun8.194822.2332@newshost.anu.edu.au> cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes: >OK, so let's try and reach some sort of consensus. Here are my modified >views: > >1 - good, or adequate communications infrastructure is desirable - but >there are mechanisms available for use in situations where comms is >abysmal. But in the case of abysmal comms, you need a very strong >desire to communicate to overcome your disadvantages. Agreed. Except I would add that simple software improvements could make an abysmal comms link simply look like a normal comms link that is twice as slow and twice as costly (but no harder to use). That merely requires a desire strong enough to pay twice the comms costs (which may not be the dominant costs). Current software makes bad phone lines hard to use - with skills needed to setup the modems at each end for the best connection and to overcome problems caused by repeated lost connections. Improved software should be able to make optimum use of whatever phone line is available and also adapt to changes without operator intervention. If it can be used for voice then it can be used for data - noise and other problems merely affect the data rate. >2 - a major problem is the configuration and maintenance of an >'email/news engine' (hardware+o/s+enduser software) - but with a bit of >thought and care it may be possible to put together some sort of turnkey >system that could just about be dropped by parachute with a note on the >power cord saying "plug me in here". That's not intended to sound >facetious - I reckon most of us reading this group could get quite far >down the road to putting together and configuring just such a system. Agreed. So let's get down to it! Actually it is quite a big job, and involves designing the network that each "engine" connects into even more than designing the individual engines. But the key thing is the design criteria for a "turnkey" system. That has NOT been a design criteria for current systems but once the need is acknowledged there is no reason it can't be achieved. >3 - user education is the crux, in two senses - firstly as to "How do I >send a message" and secondly to address the problem of "Why the hell >should I bother about sending messages". These two educational tasks >are vastly different in scope, but both need to be addressed - in >different contexts. The first is a technical problem, and the second is >'political'. I partly agree concerning the first and disagree on the second. The second is a "marketing" problem. Given that only a small westernized elite that has access to telephones and computers are likely to be directly involved initially in developing countries and given the additional communications costs, I think it will only be used where there is a real benefit. Some demand clearly exists already and the normal process would be to spread out from there without any great need for "education" (who "educates" people or "markets" email in developed countries - that is only becoming significant now AFTER substantial numbers have started using it). The only special thing I can see about developing countries is that they have no hope whatever of achieving an early "critical mass" of users within each country (or even regionally) and therefore international links are crucial. Email use will spread from people using it for international connections to local use rather than the other way round, so we should concentrate on the international connections more than might otherwise appear necessary. I agree that technical improvements to make it easier to see how to send (and receive) messages are highly desirable (and especially necessary to substitute for other forms of "user education" that are harder to provide in developing countries). However I'm not convinced they are "the crux". Provided that "system administration" tasks are taken care of, there are existing user interfaces available, at least commercially, that should not be a major barrier. Even senior business executives use email nowadays and if they can be taught, anybody can. (Or at least I see no reason why the simplified user interfaces made available to business executives should not be more widely available). >4 - you can't do it alone - you need a support group of some sort. By >this I mean a site in a developed country that is well connected to >existing networks and that is prepared to allow you to connect up to >them (and possibly bear the costs of dialup as a gesture of goodwill >towards the developing country) and is prepared to do a lot of initial >baby sitting. I think that is part of the problem. It just transfers some of the system administration problem to a developed country site instead of handling it in a developing country. That may well be the only way to go for some immediate urgent links but it severely restricts growth by depending on continuing goodwill and resource input from host sites in developed countries. Far better to design the network (not just the individual site "engine") to require minimal support. There would need to be a site in a developed country well connected to existing networks and with sufficient technical expertise both to maintain those connections and to maintain the rest of the network. But the rest should just "plug in" without needing to negotiate special arrangements anywhere. This includes plugging in to links with neighbours and regional hubs etc - not direct to one central site nor from each developing country to a separate developed country site. The network should configure itself semi-automatically to minimize the cost of feeds (while maintaining reliability etc) and will need adequate accounting systems to allow sites that can provide a cheaper feed to do so without having to pay the full cost themselves on behalf of others. >None of that sounds impossible, does it? I can think, offhand, of >several countries around here that could benefit instantly if such a >'package' could be put together. However, few sites are altruistic >enough to spend the time and money required. Perhaps they should be. It requires a "project" involving a number of people from a number of areas. My points above are intended to suggest that we should concentrate on item 2 rather than giving equal attention to all 4. That will also be of great benefit within develeped countries and should make it possible to attract involvement from people not particularly concerned about developing countries. Let's do it! -- Opinions disclaimed (Authoritative answer from opinion server) Header reply address wrong. Use cmf851@csc2.anu.edu.au