Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!bstempleton
From:
[email protected] (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Top News Submitters by Person
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 3-Jul-83 03:35:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.5473
Posted: Sun Jul 3 03:35:34 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Jul-83 04:43:11 EDT
References: <
[email protected]>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 51
Well, thanks for submitting this info.
It shows something which will become even more and more of a problem when
the net grows.
Here we have a new site (mit-eddi) which was by an order of magnitude
the biggest poster on the net, and which contained the user who
posted the most as well, again by a substantial margin. If everybody
had as much to say as these guys, the net would very quickly collapse
of its own weight.
We need something more to help educate new users as to the size of
the net and the net etiquette rules that have developed. This
means that news software has got to insist that people know this,
and be quite verbose in warnings etc. on posting. (This is justified,
since one posting can equal at least several thousand readings)
The problem is that there are always old sites out there running old stuff
and we can't effect such changes.
Thus I suggest we adopt in the news software a system to help encourage
people to update. This would consist of code that checks the system
clock against the expiry date. If the code has expired, it either fails
to work or prints out "This code has expired. Please install an update
etc..." every time it is used. Now we can't hide this code, so a nasty
system administrator could delete it, but this itself would be a reminder
that the code is out of date.
We could go even further. What we have is essentially an anarchy on
the net, and the only way to get things done is by technocratic methods.
We could actually go so far as to have news systems send special header
items similar to passwords, encripted with the posting date so the
password can't be figured out. Once a password expires, it and the new
password would be accepted for a given number of weeks (perhaps 4) and
after that no incoming articles with a bad password would be accepted.
Thus any site that doesn't update will still pass on news but will
not get any of their generated news accepted on the net.
This does sound rather harsh, and it's certainly quite far from the
track of any software policy I have heard of, but I would like to
get comments on this philosophy.
I realize many sites don't have the time to keep track of updates.
This scheme means that sites that have the time to post news must also
have the time to post it correctly.
None of this apples to readnews, though. Mostly it applies to inews
because it by posting only that we are members of a community which will
soon need laws.
--
Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version Vortex 1.0 6/6/83; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!vortex!lauren
From: Lauren Weinstein <
[email protected]>
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Usenet, Inc., etc.
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 25-Jul-83 04:18:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.73
Posted: Mon Jul 25 04:18:51 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Jul-83 13:23:59 EDT
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 179
Greetings. Some of you out there may recall my comments on this
subject a couple of Usenix's ago, and my opinions have not altered
since then. In short, I'm sorry gang, but I just don't buy it.
I have nothing against the concept of information utilities (and in
fact I have been involved in the planning of such beasties) but
the Usenet framework simply cannot be coerced into a "commercial"
pattern without total disruption -- with the end result most likely
being FAR fewer sites distributing even less useful information
at HIGHER cost. There is a simple rule that pervades all aspects
of technology, and it applies here as well: "If something isn't
broken, DON'T TRY FIX IT!" And, contrary to the feelings that some
persons may have, Usenet (in general) is NOT BROKEN. Let's consider
some points, both positive and negative:
1) My contention all along has been that, contrary to appearances,
USENET DOES NOT EXIST. Yes friends, even though you are reading
this message, there is no "real" Usenet. What we DO have is a
collection of many random computers happily calling each other
(essentially at random) and spilling various messages onto each
other's disks. There is no central authority, no central control,
no FORCED costs. Each site makes an individual decision regarding
what resources (if any) they can devote to participation in
Usenet activities. If some sites cannot absorb heavy telephone
costs, other sites are free, as they see fit, to subsidize those
less "wealthy" sites. Nobody FORCES sites to poll other sites --
such polling is done when it is considered beneficial to all involved,
and may involve as few or as many newsgroups as desired. If a site
feels that it is no longer beneficial to continue polling a given
site or set of sites, they may discontinue at any time.
The point here is that Usenet provides a very efficient
system for ensuring maximal freedom AND maximal fairness, since
each site only calls those sites that it has decided it can afford
to call and that it wishes (for whatever reasons) to call. This
all takes place without a central authority and proceeds well.
There is no reason to add a layer of bureaucracy! I've seen
similiar situations in the past where well-meaning individuals
have set up such mechanisms to try bring "fairness" and "order" to
a situation. The result is almost always an increase in costs
and a decrease in value. However, some bureaucrats DO get
jobs out of the deal. Whoopee.
2) A central Usenet authority would find itself to be LEGALLY responsible
for most Usenet interactions. This would include possible lawsuits
over slanderous materials and possible copyright violations, dissemination
of possibly obscene material into areas that have strict rules
against such materials (encryption makes no difference from the
legal standpoint), and so forth. I don't think that anyone seriously
wants to take this on in this environment. Right now, since there
really is NO network, there is no single organization that can be
sued or otherwise pinpointed for blame. In fact, since Usenet is
really just lots of separate "private" messages which are being
relayed from point to point, it is probable that materials could not
even be considered to be "published" at all -- which might be a very
desirable situation. Create Usenet, Inc., however -- and this
all changes. You've got an entity to blame now, and the messages have
been formalized into a framework that would probably be considered
to be publishing -- subject to the same rules and regulations as more
conventional publications. I don't think we really want this at
this time.
3) You cannot simply gloss over the fact that Usenet costs are typically
bundled in with other UUCP and communications costs. This lack
of formal differentiation of costs allows many sites with "hard-nosed"
administrators to participate in a fairly free environment with a
minimum of unnecessary bureaucratic interference. If you turn
Usenet into a "line item" on the budget, you are going to find many
sites subjecting news to intense scrutiny, and all but the groups
considered most "relevant" by the adminstrators, regardless of
their actual merit, will be dropped. Maybe this would be more "efficient"
in terms of budget outlay and win you points with the head office --
but is this really what you want? Probably some "rich" sites could
avoid this fate, but I'll give you odds that many sites will find
themselves either cutoff completely or severely restricted.
4) How do you establish a fair "charging" system? Some sites could afford
to pay thousands of dollars a year -- IF administrators would agree
to such an explicit item. Others couldn't afford anything -- just
paying the monthly bill for power and phone lines (not even including
any long distance calls) can be an extreme strain. However, the
persons who submit the best quality messages cannot always be
expected to be located on such "rich" machines -- they're going to
be spread all over, including at sites with little or no budget and
little or no hope of getting approval for formal payments to
Usenet, Inc. Should all of these "less fortunate" people be cut off?
This might leave us with a lot of messages from rich sites -- but
would the overall quality of the net be the same? I say no -- it would
be lower.
I've given this quite a bit of thought, and I do NOT believe it to be
possible to derive a "fair" charging plan for Usenet. The only entity
that would be sure to come out ahead would be Usenet, Inc., itself.
5) The idea of charging persons for submitting items is not reasonable.
Persons who submit useful material should not be penalized for such
practices. A person who wants to answer a question in an area in
which he or she has expertise should not have to pay for the privilege.
It's not even clear if the person ASKING the question should be
charged, since the question (and answers) might be of interest to
a wide range of persons on the net.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Now, let's get to the
bottom line. The real "problems" with Usenet don't have to do with
organization or overall costs. As I've pointed out, individual
sites optimize calling and costs as they see fit, and the lack of
a formal organization has certain very significant benefits.
So what's the problem? THE QUALITY OF MESSAGES! That's the bottom
line, in my opinion. We don't REALLY need 30 people telling us
that "BTW" stands for "By The Way". ONE would have sufficed -- and
that's assuming that the question should have been asked on the network
in the first place. A very large percentage of the items on the net
should really be sent as direct mail -- not as netnews articles!
If all of the messages that essentially say the same thing
or that really shouldn't be present at all could be expunged from the
net, I believe we'd find an immense lowering of overall costs, and
a MUCH more useful "network". I am continually hearing from people
who have stopped reading most or all of netnews since they just don't
have the time to filter through the garbage to find a few reasonable
and useful items -- and who can blame them? It's not even the NUMBER
of people that causes the problem -- the network could handle many
more users successfully, since most people don't generate many messages,
most none at all in fact!
There are elements to dealing with this problem successfully. None of
them involves Usenet, Inc. or anything like it. One element is
clearly user education. There really has been no formal attempt to
make sure that all users are properly informed as to the matrix
of customs that make up Usenet. These "customs" should be put into
some sort of more formal framework as quickly as possible.
Another important element (here we go again) is to make better use
of DIGESTS!!! Yes, digests! It must be becoming apparent by now
that some form of editing of many materials to cut out repetitious
and nonsense messages is increasingly necessary. This isn't necessarily
censorship. Would you expect "Time" magazine to publish every
manuscript sent to the editor? You wouldn't have the desire (or time)
to read anything if they operated in that manner. The use of digests
would mean that only ONE copy of most messages would be MAILED to
the digest moderator, and only the finished digest would be
broadcast to the entire net. There are certainly technical issues
to be worked out, but I believe that a massive improvement in quality
and a lowering of costs could be realized by such a technique being
used for even a few of the more verbose newsgroups.
I've taken up far too much space already, and I apologize in advance.
However, I've seen situations in the past closely analogous to this one,
and Usenet, Inc. is simply the wrong way to go. There are solutions
to our specific problems, but Usenet, Inc. is not one of them -- it would
only cause its own problems. I respect Usenet, and I want to see
it continue -- but that means dealing with our specific problems in
the correct manner, and Usenet, Inc. just isn't it. I hope some
of you agree with me.
--Lauren--
{decvax, ihnp4, harpo, ucbvax!lbl-csam, randvax}!vortex!lauren
P.S. As for satellite circuits and such... I do work in this area, and
I don't believe that Usenet generates the "correct" form of
traffic to be cost effective for the leasing of satellite
channels. Intrastate telephone costs in many cases are similar
to long-haul interstate costs at various hours, and my calculations
in the past for other clients have convinced me that satellite
channels are only useful for extremely high volume traffic that
is heavily centralized. There are a couple of hops in Usenet
that might have enough traffic to almost be suitable, but the
costs would be similar if not higher in most cases. There are
alternatives to satellite channels, of course, some of which
might be more cost effective than what we're using now. I can
elaborate on this topic later if anyone wishes.
--LW--
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!bstempleton
From:
[email protected] (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Usenet, Inc., etc.
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 26-Jul-83 00:20:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.5577
Posted: Tue Jul 26 00:20:14 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Jul-83 04:48:55 EDT
References: <
[email protected]>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 61
Thanks Lauren and Larry for comments. Let's consider.
Lauren says the net is not broken, so don't fix it. At the end of
the message, he lists problems (BTW for example) and alternate solutions
to usenet inc. I think you must agree, Lauren that the question of a
broken (or breaking) net is not that clear cut.
I do admit the bureaucrat problem could be big. To solve that, i would
suggest articles for USENET inc that forbid what we do not want. Sort
of a constitution or Bill of Rights.
Anyway, I maintain this would not be a big problem. In the beginning,
USENET inc could operate exactly as things do now, just as another node
that centralizes database connection. It would talk only to rich sites
that could afford it and those rich sites who are paying for the net now
could continue to do this by feeding to others. Things would only
change if people wanted them too, ie. paid for them. This is the
same democracy you have both spoken of.
(The current system where anybody can spend the money of the rich
companies which support usenet regardless of their financial status is
nothing but socialism, of course, which I never thought was a common
philosophy on the net. Not that socialism is necessarily invalid for
a net, mind you, but I am not a socialist myself)
I am not sure on the legal questions. Surely the precedents in
forwarding and transport companies are clear. Does Telco take legal
liability for what is said on the phone? Does Telenet or Tymnet?
Does Federal Express?
No, only editors could take this burden, and in this case that's fine
because they will be sure to not allow libel or slander to be posted,
as is their duty under the laws of our society.
Will the rich sites do all the posting? This is the socialism question
again. My solution is the same as Lauren's, namely moderators and digests.
Except usenet inc provides a very easy framework in which to put such
moderators. This includes a central site for them to be on, and somebody
to pay for insurance against any legal problems. The idea is that
everybody takes collect (just like today) what the moderators sends, because
they trust it (just like when they pay for a magazine) and know they will
not see 30 expansions of BTW. If a site elects to act just like today
(this is just as much democracy as anything else) they can accept all
things collect. If somebody sends something that the moderator refuses,
then I see nothing wrong with forcing them to pay to send it.
As long as the moderators are subject to censure for mistakes, we will
be in the clear. Thus the usenet inc bill of rights would allow any
user to insist the moderator post their article with disclaimer and allow
the community at large to support or censure the moderator.
If they support the moderator, the poster pays, if they censure, the
community pays and considers firing the moderator.
The biggest problem with the whole thing is the "Usenet as a separate item"
problem. Currently a lot of usenet is supported by hiding the costs
in large corporate phone bills, duping the people who are paying the money.
This is just plain dishonest, but if you approve of it, that is your right.
At this site, we do pay the usenet bill as a separate item, and any
cost reduction due to economy of scale would probably be welcome.
--
Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version Vortex 1.0 6/6/83; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!vortex!lauren
From: Lauren Weinstein <
[email protected]>
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Usenet, Inc. -- The Saga Continues...
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 28-Jul-83 17:20:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.77
Posted: Thu Jul 28 17:20:22 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Jul-83 13:10:15 EDT
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 192
Lauren here.
Let's reply specifically to Brad's points...
--------------------------
Start of edited transcript
--------------------------
Posted: Tue Jul 26 00:20:14 1983
From:
[email protected] (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: net.news
Lauren says the net is not broken, so don't fix it. At the end of
the message, he lists problems (BTW for example) and alternate solutions
to usenet inc. I think you must agree, Lauren that the question of a
broken (or breaking) net is not that clear cut.
I said that the net, "in general", was not broken. The
"problems" I cite are not indications of a general breakdown,
but are very specific to user education and patterns of
usage. Using "Usenet, Inc." to try cure those problems would
be like trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. My opinion
is that the exact same problems would continue to exist
under Usenet, Inc., except then people would be explicitly paying
for them. "Surgical" solutions to the specific problems,
not a wholesale reorganization, is what's really called for.
We don't need Usenet, Inc. to solve such problems.
I do admit the bureaucrat problem could be big. To solve that, i would
suggest articles for USENET inc that forbid what we do not want. Sort
of a constitution or Bill of Rights.
"Forbid"? Sounds more like a declaration of martial law
than a "Bill of Rights" to me...
Anyway, I maintain this would not be a big problem. In the beginning,
USENET inc could operate exactly as things do now, just as another node
that centralizes database connection. It would talk only to rich sites
that could afford it and those rich sites who are paying for the net now
could continue to do this by feeding to others. Things would only
change if people wanted them too, ie. paid for them. This is the
same democracy you have both spoken of.
What this actually does is create a formal "rich vs. poor"
framework, and would eventually result in many small
sites withering away. Why? Because administrators, faced
with paying the bill for "Usenet, Inc." are hardly likely
to sanction "charity" on top of that bill (in most cases).
I see absolutely no advantage to the proposed scheme over
what we currently have in this regard.
(The current system where anybody can spend the money of the rich
companies which support usenet regardless of their financial status is
nothing but socialism, of course, which I never thought was a common
philosophy on the net. Not that socialism is necessarily invalid for
a net, mind you, but I am not a socialist myself.)
Sounds like part of the argument used to break up AT&T.
We're all starting to see exactly how *that* wonderful fiasco
threatens to affect local phone rates. I don't want to see the same
sort of thing happen to Usenet. Socialism and Capitalism
should have nothing whatsoever to do with this situation.
I am not sure on the legal questions. Surely the precedents in
forwarding and transport companies are clear. Does Telco take legal
liability for what is said on the phone? Does Telenet or Tymnet?
Does Federal Express?
No, only editors could take this burden, and in this case that's fine
because they will be sure to not allow libel or slander to be posted,
as is their duty under the laws of our society.
The precedents are decidedly UNCLEAR. I believe that there
have indeed been lawsuits against "transport" companies
and utilities for harrassing and undesired mail/calls.
By extension, this would seem possible for "electronic mail"
companies as well. You haven't seen this yet since the
industry is so young and most usage (up to now, at least)
has been heavily "business"-oriented with little
informal communications taking place on a large scale.
I expect to see the first lawsuits (against some
firm(s) in the electronic mail business) within the next few years.
It is also not always clear what "libel" or "slander" really
are, which tends to cause organizations with possible
legal liability to err in the direction of conservatism,
rejecting material which might even *possibly* be *considered*
to be offensive.
Will the rich sites do all the posting? This is the socialism question
again. My solution is the same as Lauren's, namely moderators and digests.
Except usenet inc provides a very easy framework in which to put such
moderators. This includes a central site for them to be on, and somebody
to pay for insurance against any legal problems. The idea is that
everybody takes collect (just like today) what the moderators sends, because
they trust it (just like when they pay for a magazine) and know they will
not see 30 expansions of BTW. If a site elects to act just like today
(this is just as much democracy as anything else) they can accept all
things collect. If somebody sends something that the moderator refuses,
then I see nothing wrong with forcing them to pay to send it.
I don't believe it. You sure as hell don't need
a central authority to set up digests and/or moderators.
I don't want the editorial decisions of such persons all
tied in with one company, nor do I want them concentrated
on one machine (or group of machines). The moderator/digest
concept will work fine within our current distributed
framework, without centralizing (which can only cause problems
if the "central sites" are down or having other difficulties)
and without putting all control in the hands of a single entity.
As long as the moderators are subject to censure for mistakes, we will
be in the clear. Thus the usenet inc bill of rights would allow any
user to insist the moderator post their article with disclaimer and allow
the community at large to support or censure the moderator.
How does *this* work? If any user can INSIST that
his/her article will be posted, then any legal protection
against slander/libel is completely lost. If The Corporation
is going to protect itself, it will be *forced* to firmly
reject many articles. A "disclaimer" does not necessarily
protect you from lawsuits related to slander, libel, etc.
You are STILL responsible.
I might add that, legally, I can imagine the GREAT time that
The Corporation would have in court trying to explain
that, "well, you see, *this* article was direct to Usenet,
and *this* one was through one of *our* moderators, so we're
not responsible for the first." Good luck. Anybody who
sets themselves up as a central administration site on the
network in this way is setting themselves up to be responsible
for all traffic when someone is searching for an entity to blame.
If they support the moderator, the poster pays, if they censure, the
community pays and considers firing the moderator.
And just how do we determine what "the community" really thinks?
Online vote? We've tried that before. Or perhaps only the
"paying" customers of Usenet, Inc. would get a vote? That would
certainly be a much smaller group of people and easier to poll.
Totally unfair of course, but easier. Let's forget about this
"poster pays" nonsense once and for all.
The biggest problem with the whole thing is the "Usenet as a seperate item"
problem. Currently a lot of usenet is supported by hiding the costs in
large corporate phone bills, duping the people who are paying the money.
This is just plain dishonest, but if you approve of it, that is your right.
At this site, we do pay the usenet bill as a seperate item, and any
cost reduction due to economy of scale would probably be welcome.
"Duping"? "Dishonest"? Strong words. I don't believe
that many administrators are completely oblivious to
the size of phone bills related to Usenet. If a site is
spending enough money that way to make a real difference,
those bills will be noticed. But there *is* a difference
between money spent for "informal" communications with other
computers (which is our current Usenet) and paying a "bill"
to some profit-making corporation. In the latter case, you
can be damn sure that administrators are going to be MUCH more
carefully scrutinizing the money being spent, and will probably say
something like, "Well, we're paying that company for network
materials, so we don't also want to spend money for that
"uncontrolled" material we're getting" (that is, the materials
not coming through The Corporation). The result: the
non-Corporation network withers away, and we're left with
all significant traffic being directed through, and controlled
by, Usenet, Inc. Sites that couldn't afford Usenet, Inc. or
disagreed with their policies would be simply out of luck.
Bye bye network.
------------------------
End of edited transcript
------------------------
The single most important step we can take RIGHT NOW to improve the
overall functionality of the network is to implement moderated newsgroups
to replace some of the more verbose standard newsgroups. We can handle
the technical problems in various ways -- but this single step will
probably do more toward ensuring the continued viability of the net than
any other course of action, and with by far the fewest negative
side-effects.
--Lauren--
P.S. I'd like to take this opportunity to collectively thank those
of you who expressed support (via direct mail) for the views
in my original "Usenet, Inc., etc." message.
It's nice to know that I'm not standing (er, uh, sitting)
here alone.
--LW--
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!bstempleton
From:
[email protected] (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Usenet, Inc. -- The Saga Continues...
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 30-Jul-83 13:18:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.5586
Posted: Sat Jul 30 13:18:41 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jul-83 23:58:29 EDT
Sender:
[email protected]
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 88
Well, I must not be expressing my points well, because there is more
opposition to this sort of company than I thought.
What makes you think that the usenet isn't paying a profit making
organization? What is the Bell System?
My original suggestion for usenet inc. was to form a company that acted
as little more than a transport mechanism (like phone lines), software
supporter, database maintainer and mail router. The idea here is that
the usenet inc machines would be on telenet or tymnet so that almost all
sites could reach them by a local call, and the transmission charges
would be reduced by the use of this data network. This would mean that
as long as the central machines had the capacity, any site could join
usenet for less, and without having to seek a megacorporation for a mentor.
The site would maintain the central mail routing database, and suddenly
mail would become much more reliable and easy to handle. Sites who connected
to this computer could be only 1 site away from the most central node on
the net, if this is important to them.
At no time have I suggested censorship or control of what flows through
the net by this transport company.
What I have just said could be all the company does. Since Bell, Berkeley
and Dec in a way have already dedicated machines to unix networking, this
could easily be enough. But I have also had ideas that can exist on top
of this structure. I am getting comments (some - some +) on them now.
They are:
1) Using the central company as a base for moderators. Our net is currently
distributed, and Lauren thinks this is not barrier to moderated groups.
I differ, as I think speed of reply is important. If the moderator is several
hops away (and some net hops insert delays of days) then it could be a week
before my submitted article makes it back to my half of the net. This is
the situation we had before we merged the arpanet digests with net groups
at sri. Something fairly central will reduce this a great deal. You could
even have alternate routes for messages marked time critical. (You could
do this now, but the massive number of sites involved would make this
a very nasty task)
2) The sender paying for mail. This is the way just about everything else
works in the communications industry. As long as you allow people to accept
collect mail, this should not cause too many problems. It does solve the
junk mail problem. Done right, the cost for the average electronic mail
message should be less than what the post office charges.
3) The sender paying for news rejected by a moderator. Again this is
an analog of the real world. If the editors of a magazine refuse your
story (ie. you can't get the recipients to pay) you can publish it yourself.
A fair bit cheaper on the usenet. I estimate with current net size we are
looking at about $4 to post a 1K byte article.
Postings where people feel it is obvious the poster should pay would also
be charged in this way. I refer to commercial product announcements,
job ads, that sort of thing.
4) Active links to other nets and machines. Usenet inc. would go after
connections to "The Source", "Compuserve", perhaps an official CSnet or
ARPA (unlikely) connection. Also to the millions of microcomputer users
out there.
5) Links to the postal services. Currently the post office will accept
electronic mail, print it in a remote city and deliver it for you.
Usenet inc. could provide this link so that you could send postal mail
from your terminal. This would be a big boon in border crossing mail,
which is usally verrrrrry slllloooooowwwww, not to mention expensive.
Compared to the one-day services, there would be no beating electronic mail.
6) Unix consulting. In a central position, this company could offer
unix consulting of all sorts, from expert consulting to answering user
questions via fast net mail. A site without a guru could consider a direct
usenet inc. connection as a substitute for one at a fraction of the cost.
I hope this clears things up. If this company gets of the ground without
the backing of some giant like AT&T, it is clear that it will only implement
what the most customers want. That's business, folks.
And now to some of Lauren's points:
1) By "Forbid" in the bill of rights note, I meant that the COMPANY would
not be allowed to do things (like certain forms of censorship, for example),
not that the customers would be barred.
2) You suggest big sites would not connect to further sites because they
have no charity? How does the net run now, then?
Brad.
--
Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cbosgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbvax!cbosgd!mark
From:
[email protected]
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Usenet, Inc. -- The Saga Continues...
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 30-Jul-83 21:03:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.154
Posted: Sat Jul 30 21:03:18 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Aug-83 07:09:01 EDT
References: <
[email protected]>
Organization: Bell Labs, Columbus
Lines: 10
For what it's worth, I would love to find a way to make money from
Usenet. But I am convinced that the net is a lot better place
right now than it would be if it were run as a service from some
company. And the prevailing opinion on the net is clearly that
the current situation (mixed quality stuff with high phone bills)
is better than the proposed change (high (in one person's opinion)
quality stuff plus moderate phone bills and service charges).
I just don't think Usenet Inc would fly here.
Mark Horton
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version Vortex 1.0 6/6/83; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!vortex!lauren
From: Lauren Weinstein <
[email protected]>
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: The Usenet, Inc. Follies Continues...
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 30-Jul-83 23:18:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.80
Posted: Sat Jul 30 23:18:54 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Aug-83 07:37:02 EDT
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 271
Greetings all. I just received some direct mail from
watmath!bstempleton on the continuing subject of "Usenet, Inc."
From the header, it is a little unclear if the article also went
to netnews, though it appears that was the intention in any case.
I am becoming a bit bored with this exchange, but let's give it
another try. I've edited my comments into Brad's message so if
you didn't receive the original via netnews, you'll get it
now (lucky you!)
I'm afraid that my comments may be becoming a bit more curt,
but even I have my limits...
Here we go...
--------
From watmath!bstempleton Sat Jul 30 17:39:41 1983 remote from allegra
To: Lauren Weinstein <
[email protected]>
Subject: Usenet, Inc. -- The Saga Continues... : net.news
Cc: news
References: <
[email protected]>
Well, I must not be expressing my points well, because there is more
opposition to this sort of company than I thought.
Indeed.
What makes you think that the usenet isn't paying a profit making
organization? What is the Bell System?
Yep. A common carrier. At least their basic communications
operations are regulated, and available to "all" without
relying on some central site or sites to manage most
communications. I'll trust Ma Bell (or her descendants)
one damn sight more than "Usenet, Inc." as we've heard
it described.
My original suggestion for usenet inc. was to form a company that acted
as little more than a transport mechanism (like phone lines), software
supporter, database maintainer and mail router. The idea here is that
the usenet inc machines would be on telenet or tymnet so that almost all
sites could reach them by a local call, and the transmission charges
would be reduced by the use of this data network. This would mean that
as long as the central machines had the capacity, any site could join
usenet for less, and without having to seek a megacorporation for a mentor.
Have you ever really tried using Telenet or Tymnet for such
applications? I have. Those networks are really oriented toward
normal terminal-oriented communications, not file transfer or
other protocol-locked applications. Yep, you can run X.25 under
certain circumstances to interconnect sites, but performance
varies widely in such applications. However, if it were determined
that a few, say, Telenet links between major sites could make
a substantial difference in costs (with an unclear effect on
reliability) then such links could be set up WITHOUT ANY DAMN
USENET, INC. However, any use of Telenet/Tymnet would require
explicit allocation of resources to Usenet, which we've already
determined could be a major problem for many sites.
The site would maintain the central mail routing database, and suddenly
mail would become much more reliable and easy to handle. Sites who connected
to this computer could be only 1 site away from the most central node on
the net, if this is important to them.
Capacity limits on both Telenet/Tymnet and on the central machine(s)
would almost certainly prevent the attainment of this goal.
These commercial networks do not behave well when dialup communica-
tions do not proceed in a "typical" manner (that is, a user sitting
there typing at relatively slow speeds). The sorts of operations
required by Usenet would almost certainly clog the commercial network
processors and result in very poor performance. My own experiments
with uploading materials into Telenet/Tymnet have demonstrated
these problems to my satisfaction, regardless of what their
marketing people say. Another problem is that these networks have
only limited resources. Usenet alone is growing at a rate
high enough that the commercial networks would rapidly slip
behind, and they have lots of other customers as well.
To summarize, these networks might be useful for a few
backbone interconnections, but not for general use as Usenet
communications paths.
At no time have I suggested censorship or control of what flows through
the net by this transport company.
Well, I'm glad to hear it.
What I have just said could be all the company does. Since Bell, Berkeley
and Dec in a way have already dedicated machines to unix networking, this
could easily be enough.
An invalid comparison. These sites are providing services
for their users and, out of charity, for the outside world
(to a certain extent). They are not selling access to these
machines commercially in the manner that Usenet, Inc.
envisions.
But I have also had ideas that can exist on top
of this structure. I am getting comments (some - some +) on them now.
They are:
1) Using the central company as a base for moderators. Our net is currently
distributed, and Lauren thinks this is not barrier to moderated groups.
I differ, as I think speed of reply is important. If the moderator is several
hops away (and some net hops insert delays of days) then it could be a week
before my submitted article makes it back to my half of the net.
Not at all. Most moderators would be located at fairly central
locations, and initial responses would be distributed
immediately. Latency would be minimal. It's only all of those
"late" responses that would take awhile to filter through the
pipe, and in most cases such "duplicates" would not normally
be distributed in any case (as I've discussed previously).
Some newsgroups will not fall into the "moderated" catagories
easily, and they would continue to be direct. Once again,
all of this can be worked out without Usenet, Inc.
This is the situation we had before we merged the arpanet digests with net
groups at sri.
Something fairly central will reduce this a great deal. You could
even have alternate routes for messages marked time critical. (You could
do this now, but the massive number of sites involved would make this
a very nasty task)
See above. Usenet, Inc. is not needed for such technical
solutions to what I have termed "accidental" problems.
2) The sender paying for mail. This is the way just about everything else
works in the communications industry. As long as you allow people to accept
collect mail, this should not cause too many problems. It does solve the
junk mail problem. Done right, the cost for the average electronic mail
message should be less than what the post office charges.
Well, Whoopdeedoo. Wow, I guess that since that's the way
"everyone" else does it (not even true) we just gotta follow right
along at the end of our leashes, eh? This "collect" mail
stuff is just another headache waiting in the wings that we
can live without. A person sending out a message would have no
way to know a priori how many messages he or she would be paying
for and how many would be accepted collect. Even most of the com-
mercial information utilities which are currently under development
will not attempt to explicitly charge users for submitting such
informational messages.
It is generally understood that charging the sender does *not*
encourage fair or useful information flow. It sure hasn't
stopped junk mail in the "real" world. Give it up.
3) The sender paying for news rejected by a moderator. Again this is
an analog of the real world. If the editors of a magazine refuse your
story (ie. you can't get the recipients to pay) you can publish it yourself.
A fair bit cheaper on the usenet. I estimate with current net size we are
looking at about $4 to post a 1K byte article.
Postings where people feel it is obvious the poster should pay would also
be charged in this way. I refer to commercial product announcements,
job ads, that sort of thing.
This is getting repetitious. The people who read product
announcements and such often benefit from such reading.
Why should the poster be the only one who pays? And, now you've
put the moderator in the position of deciding who gets charged
and who doesn't. This would seem to mean that "the rich"
could post all the crap they wanted, while everyone
else would have to sit around counting their Usenet pennies.
What rot.
4) Active links to other nets and machines. Usenet inc. would go after
connections to "The Source", "Compuserve", perhaps an official CSnet or
ARPA (unlikely) connection. Also to the millions of microcomputer users
out there.
Oh boy. What fun. Heaven and Hell protect us.
I can't wait for those lightbulb jokes! Let's find a way
to solve the minor newsgroup problems we have now with a network of
this size before we start opening up the floodgates to the
unwashed masses. Even my IBM-PC UUCP will be under
controlled distribution via people with connections to
existing Usenet sites until I'm sure that the networks
can handle the load without serious problems. I don't want
to see the whole ball of wax pack it in!
5) Links to the postal services. Currently the post office will accept
electronic mail, print it in a remote city and deliver it for you.
Usenet inc. could provide this link so that you could send postal mail
from your terminal. This would be a big boon in border crossing mail,
which is usally verrrrrry slllloooooowwwww, not to mention expensive.
Compared to the one-day services, there would be no beating electronic mail.
The minimum quantity restrictions on this service are about to
be lifted. This means that any individual site (or even user
with a modem) will shortly be able to use this USPS service
economically, if they care to. We won't need Usenet, Inc. for that.
6) Unix consulting. In a central position, this company could offer
unix consulting of all sorts, from expert consulting to answering user
questions via fast net mail. A site without a guru could consider a direct
usenet inc. connection as a substitute for one at a fraction of the cost.
If you want to provide such a service, then go ahead. But such
services have been tried in the past, with only fair to poor
results. When people are paying real money for consulting,
they usually want the consultant there or on the phone in
a more interactive environment. The level of "consulting"
that can be reasonably accomplished over networks is about what
we see now in terms of UNIX-WIZARDS and direct mail.
I hope this clears things up. If this company gets of the ground without
the backing of some giant like AT&T, it is clear that it will only implement
what the most customers want. That's business, folks.
Yeah, right. Surely you jest? Once people are dependent on
the company for communications, the company will proceed as
*it* thinks best -- and people who aren't happy will be
invited to leave.
And now to some of Lauren's points:
1) By "Forbid" in the bill of rights note, I meant that the COMPANY would
not be allowed to do things (like certain forms of censorship, for example),
not that the customers would be barred.
Well, by the time we all finished our list of "forbids" I'll
bet you that there isn't damn much left for the company to
do other than collect the money!
2) You suggest big sites would not connect to further sites because they
have no charity? How does the net run now, then?
Must we go over this again? The network runs now as a
mass of independent communications whose costs are generally
being absorbed into other communications-related costs
of running a computer site. Once you've split off the costs
of Usenet and subject them to careful scrutiny, it is unlikely
that many sites would be willing to continue much of the "charity"
we now see. They would be extremely sensitive to the "value"
of network services in relation to costs, and as such only
high-value materials would continue to be distributed or submitted.
--Lauren--
Brad.
-------
Lauren here. On further consideration, it is becoming pretty clear
what's going on. Brad wants to start an information utility.
There's nothing wrong with that; I myself am involved with a company
that is investigating the same sort of possibility for largescale
implementation. However, Brad wants to take a "short-cut" and implement
his network upon the existing backbone of Usenet sites. That's the
problem. Don't try to push the existing network of Usenet sites, most
of whom are pretty happy with the way things are working (and would
be even happier with some "surigical" modifications to newsgroup
organization) into the commercial framework you'd like to see.
If you want to start a utility, do it the way the rest of us do --
start from scratch. Stop trying to "cash-in" on the nice, cooperative
systems we currently have running.
I have nothing against information utilities, but I want to see Usenet
continue as a friendly non-commercial cooperative as well. Let's try not
to muddle the two in the rush toward the bucks. Trying to build the
former out of the latter is simply wrong.
Unless strongly prodded, this will probably be my last statement on this
subject for awhile. I'm really getting tired of going through this
stuff again and again. So, if you see some messages crossing the net
about Usenet, Inc. and wonder why I haven't responded... it isn't
from any change of heart -- it's simply an attempt to avoid arthritis
of the fingers. Cheers.
--Lauren--
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr
From:
[email protected] (Peter Rowley)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Usenet Inc == CSNET ?
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 31-Jul-83 05:48:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.1857
Posted: Sun Jul 31 05:48:11 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 31-Jul-83 08:27:27 EDT
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 65
From literature and a presentation given at the Toronto USENIX, my
impression is that CSNET is quite similar to the proposed Usenet Inc., in
a form with as little bureaucracy as possible, and with non-profit status.
Some excerpts from "csnet news", no. 1 (may 83):
"CSNET was established in 1981 with a 5 year grant from the National Science
Foundation. From the beginning, the goal of the project has been to create
an independent network, fully supported by membership dues and service fees.
With this in mind, NSF has adopted a schedule of dues and fees for 1983,
and the Coordination and Information Centre (CIC) has developed models of
expected service charges. ...
CSNET dues support software maintenance and development, hardware, tech.
staff, and other expenses associated with shared resources such as the
PhoneNet relays, the Name Server facility, and the CIC. Dues also defray
the costs of documentation, network management, and network governance
activities. Each member of CSNET is required to pay yearly dues to
support CSNET operation."
Here are the current dues:
Industrial: $30K/yr Government: $10K/yr Univ: $5K/yr
The two relays mentioned are at Rand Corp. in Santa Monica and U. Delaware.
A PhoneNet site dials into the closest relay, except where a site has been
moved to the other relay for load balancing. An X25Net (Telenet) site
accesses CSNet by buying special hardware from Telenet, getting X.25/TCP-IP
sw from Purdue (runs only on BSD) and paying Telenet $1000/mo. for a 4800 baud
line, packet charges not included. The break-even point for phone/telenet is
about $22K/yr.
PhoneNet sites pay service fees too:
Day Evening/Night
Dial-out .80 .40
Dial-in .10 .10
These are on top of any telco charges and are in terms of $/connect-minute.
The CSNet model predicts service fees of between $125 and $625 a year for
light-heavy PhoneNet mail users (note that there is no news). X25 service
fees have not been established yet.
All the details can't be gone into in the space of a news article, but
it appears that CSNET provides the reliable mail and name server services
desired, and could handle news.
The bureaucracy involved is the 6 member management committee, which appears
to be responsible to the NSF, and the >=4 member staff of the CIC, located at
BBN in Cambridge Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment:
It appears that a lot of work has gone into setting CSNET up, together
with a good deal of money from the NSF. For this to happen again with USENet
would probably require private, for-profit funding (public funders would say
"Use CSNET"), resulting in a for-profit organization probably more expensive
than CSNET.
The obvious statement to make is that sites who want a "USENet Inc." should
cough up the CSNET dues and join that network, then help/urge them to get news
going. Note that this would not satisfy the user-pay advocates, as univ's
(and government sites) get a break on dues.
I would suggest, however, that USENet as it is, with no bureaucracy at all,
is a valuable thing to preserve. It has an active, informed community capable
of contributing software and manpower to the net. If a new news/mail pkg is
created, no bureaucracy need be convinced of its worth... all that must be
done is to post it to net.sources. Those who feel it can be used, in
the given environment (with all requisite compatability problems), may use
it. This seems as democratic as one could hope for.
peter rowley, U. Toronto CSRG
{cornell,watmath,ihnp4,floyd,allegra,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!peterr
or {cwruecmp,duke,linus,lsuc,research}!utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!chris
From:
[email protected]
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: CSNet
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 1-Aug-83 18:09:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1341
Posted: Mon Aug 1 18:09:10 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Aug-83 22:49:50 EDT
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 18
CSNet, as it stands now, would collapse instantly under the weight
of netnews. Without some way of distributing the load, the two
relays would not be able to handle all the traffic. That's the
basic trouble with a centralized system, and is the reason for all
the research into distributed computing. You can only squeeze so
much into a single system.
- Chris
PS Don't get me wrong, I think CSNet is actually doing quite well.
It hasn't been around long enough to solve the initial problems
(like slow software). Supposedly MMDF II is a big step in increasing
speed. - ACT
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet: chris@umcp-cs
ARPA: chris.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site mcvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!mcvax!jim
From:
[email protected]
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: cost of sending netnews to aliens
Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 3-Aug-83 01:12:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: mcvax.5322
Posted: Wed Aug 3 01:12:41 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Aug-83 23:20:50 EDT
References: <
[email protected]>
Organization: Math.Centre, Amsterdam
Lines: 44
Well, as an alien, perhaps I should use my zap-gun on those
HILFs who break the rules and then there would be no problem?
But, lets look at the current situation. In all the recent debate,
no one in Europe has complained about the supposedly imminent
collapse of the net, or about the number of articles which are just
so many bytes in the wind (at least I haven't seen any, perhaps
Andy is moderating us already?).
Why is that? Well, the net isn't collapsing over here, and is already
run on a pay-as-you-read basis. I can't speak for the UK, and I am sure,
as in all things, the UK would not like somewhere else in Europe to
speak for her (the UK is only GEOGRAPHICALLY close to Europe), but the
UK gets it's news free from vax135; I don't know how much they get.
And we get a small number of groups through philabs, ones which people
asked us to get, not a blanket coverage anymore. Hopefully we will soon
be getting some more news groups from decvax, and to those sites which
ask for them, we will re-distribute. Another major manufacturer has
offered some free satellite time, which we are investigating.
So where is our problem? I think only you have a problem. We are in the
fortunate position of starting up late and having someone (Teus Hagen)
who put things on a nice footing. There is a Dutch saying, there is no
point in filling in the hole after the cow has drowned, and that is
what Usenet Inc. would be. And, as pointed out, you would really run into
problems when if you tried to expand it over more than one country, the
sum of the bureaucracies of 12 countries is MUCH more than the individual
parts.
As to moderating, that is already being done here on a communal, per-group
basis, witness the fate of net.general. But it means we have to keep trying
to find cheaper ways to obtain the groups, so we can afford to make some
mistakes and chuck them later. However, the real problem is that the
(soon to be) 3 news feeds supply different groups, and there is no
net.anything passed between the UK and Europe, so we would perhaps not get
a fair and unbiased choice. And anyway, how could you possibly ask even
a HILF like Andy Tannenbaum to waste his time doing that (Hmmmm, perhaps it
would keep him quiet?)?
I don't know how this panic started, perhaps it was just someone who
wondered how a thing could be so large without any organisation.
Maybe he should look at US foreign policy as an example.
Jim McKie Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam ...{decvax|philabs}!mcvax!jim
