Mike Ingle writes:
There are occasional waves of actions against BBSes. The most recent ones are for porn. Before that it was pirate software and phone codes. The next ...
What we need is a totally decentralized BBS. It would be something like running Usenet over UUCP. There would be newsgroups or SIGs or whatever you want to call them. Anyone could leave their computer and modem on, and anyone else could call them and get an update. There would be no BBS to call and log into. You'd just call your friend's computer and update your newsgroups, and someone would call yours and update his. The network would grow outward, with no organization or structure. Anyone could create a new newsgroup, and if his friends chose to take it, it would spread. ...
I'm pretty perplexed: What's wrong with the current Netnews (Usenet...), Email, etc. setup? It's very flexible and you can get access for very reasonable amounts of money (even for a server). The software's free, the net is huge, etc... I dislike BBS's alot compared to standard Internet services. It's only expensive if you want online, realtime access, gigabytes/mo. of traffic, etc.
This is FIDONet (or FidoNet). In most essential features, this is what FidoNet has been doing for the past half dozen years. Distributed, decentralized, dial-up lines, banyan-type architecture (sort of), etc.
Tom Jennings, one of the main architects of FidoNet, was once on our list, as were a couple of others, but they don't seem to be any longer.
There are some interesting issues here, which I'll just list:
* since the FidoNet is not subsidized by others the way the Internet is, operators of FidoNet nodes (I don't know the exact term) often end up subsidizing the costs themselves.
Most systems/people on the Internet are not subsidized. This is well known. The critical mass of users has obviated the need for it. I've been grappling with what features I'd like in the perfect communications / BBS / Internet / online system. Does anyone have strong opinions about which features are important? For instance: I find that my Unix Internet mail/news tools are an order of magnitude more efficient than any BBS message base reader I've ever encountered. sdw -- Stephen D. Williams Local Internet Gateway Co.; SDW Systems 513 496-5223APager LIG dev./sales Internet: sdw@lig.net OO R&D Source Dist. By Horse: 2464 Rosina Dr., Miamisburg, OH 45342-6430 Comm. Consulting ICBM: 39 34N 85 15W I love it when a plan comes together Newbie Notice: (Surfer's know the score...) I speak for LIGCo., CCI, myself, and no one else, regardless of where it is convenient to post from or thru.
There are some interesting issues here, which I'll just list:
* since the FidoNet is not subsidized by others the way the Internet is, operators of FidoNet nodes (I don't know the exact term) often end up subsidizing the costs themselves.
Most systems/people on the Internet are not subsidized. This is well known. The critical mass of users has obviated the need for it.
The subsidies are as follows: - universities that provide "free" access to students, faculty, researchers, etc. (all those ".edu" accounts) - corporations that provide similar access to some or all of their employees - government labs, offices, etc. The number of Internet users who are going through commercial services like Netcom, Panix, Portal, etc., or through services like CompuServe and Prodigy, is currently a small fraction of the overall total. This will grow, but for the present discussion, most Internet users are not paying their own bills for their usage of the Net (let alone paying to ship NetNews around the world). And even the commercial service providers cross-subsidize in various ways (Netcom, for example, is reported to be making real money in its T1 links...). My point was not at all that FidoNet is a superior service (it isn't). What I said was that the Internet is subsidized--I didn't elaborate on by whom, and I certainly wasn't saying ARPA or NSF pays for it all--and that this accounts for much of its explosive growth. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
...
Most systems/people on the Internet are not subsidized. This is well known. The critical mass of users has obviated the need for it.
The subsidies are as follows:
- universities that provide "free" access to students, faculty, researchers, etc. (all those ".edu" accounts)
- corporations that provide similar access to some or all of their employees
- government labs, offices, etc.
The number of Internet users who are going through commercial services like Netcom, Panix, Portal, etc., or through services like CompuServe and Prodigy, is currently a small fraction of the overall total. This will grow, but for the present discussion, most Internet users are not paying their own bills for their usage of the Net (let alone paying to ship NetNews around the world).
Unusual use of the word 'subsidized'... Most of the above I would just call indirectly funded. I don't think you'd say that corporate employees get subsidized pencils just because it's an expense item for the corp. and they buy in bulk. I guess what you meant was 'institutionally supported'. 'Subsidized' normally means gov. grants to me. (Yes, a fraction of the above examples get gov. grants specifically for Internet expense, but not most.) Thanks for the clarification. sdw -- Stephen D. Williams Local Internet Gateway Co.; SDW Systems 513 496-5223APager LIG dev./sales Internet: sdw@lig.net OO R&D Source Dist. By Horse: 2464 Rosina Dr., Miamisburg, OH 45342-6430 Comm. Consulting ICBM: 39 34N 85 15W I love it when a plan comes together Newbie Notice: (Surfer's know the score...) I speak for LIGCo., CCI, myself, and no one else, regardless of where it is convenient to post from or thru.
Stephen Williams writes: ...
Unusual use of the word 'subsidized'... Most of the above I would just call indirectly funded. I don't think you'd say that corporate employees get subsidized pencils just because it's an expense item for the corp. and they buy in bulk.
When the costs are underwritten by others, and the marginal cost to an employee or student is zero or near zero, I call that a subsidy. The pencil example is indeed a subsidy, just as when we often hear things like "Intel is subsidizing the costs of lunch for its employees." (Subsidies occur for various purposes.) Oxford English Dictionary, Second subsidy -- 1. help, aid, assistance (and many related variants) American Heritage, Third subsidy -- 2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another. (and so on)
I guess what you meant was 'institutionally supported'. 'Subsidized' normally means gov. grants to me. (Yes, a fraction of the above examples get gov. grants specifically for Internet expense, but not most.)
See above. This meaning of subsidy is commonly used, at least by me and the dictionary makers. When a father angrily says to his son, "Look, who do you think is subsidizing your little adventures?," this is the meaning. Or the lunch example. Regardless of such nit-picking about exact meanings of words, there is no doubt that for most people on the Net today, their costs are subsidized (paid for all or in part by others) and thus their market decisions are skewed or distorted by this process. The millions of college students with Net access through their schools can hang out in MUDs and MOOs for many hours every night, knowing their costs are fixed (that is, the costs are folded in to their fees, possibly, or don't exist at all....who can say). The point is that this "free" (marginally, at least, and largely free even in overall terms) service will generally outcompete one which offers similar services but which requires the user to pay for his use in a standard sort of way. And, yes, these same arguments apply to why corporate and government users, whose access to the Net is provided by their employer, will also pick a service that has zero marginal cost to them over a service (like FidoNet) that may cost them hundreds of dollars a month for a feed (I won't get into the range of FidoNet connections, or what telecom pricing trends will means, etc.). (Again, I am making no arguments here for or against the subsidization of students or employees. Merely commenting on a competitive fact of life about the Net.) --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
When the costs are underwritten by others, and the marginal cost to an employee or student is zero or near zero, I call that a subsidy.
I call that "flat-rate". Netcom charges $30 a month (I think) with no marginal costs (right?); Harvey Mudd charges $20K a year with no marginal costs (and certain other benefits, to be sure).
The point is that this "free" (marginally, at least, and largely free even in overall terms) service will generally outcompete one which offers similar services but which requires the user to pay for his use in a standard sort of way.
The reason that most access providers don't charge by the packet for Internet traffic is that it's not economical to do so -- a T1 doesn't care how much you put across it. As a result, they do flat rate service, users generate more traffic, and users see a slower network connection. But until people aren't willing to pay per-packet fees in order to deter excess traffic, this will continue. Eli ebrandt@hmc.edu finger for PGP key. The above text is worth precisely its weight in gold.
...
When the costs are underwritten by others, and the marginal cost to an employee or student is zero or near zero, I call that a subsidy. The pencil example is indeed a subsidy, just as when we often hear things like "Intel is subsidizing the costs of lunch for its employees."
(Subsidies occur for various purposes.) ... The point is that this "free" (marginally, at least, and largely free even in overall terms) service will generally outcompete one which offers similar services but which requires the user to pay for his use in a standard sort of way.
And, yes, these same arguments apply to why corporate and government users, whose access to the Net is provided by their employer, will also pick a service that has zero marginal cost to them over a service (like FidoNet) that may cost them hundreds of dollars a month for a feed (I won't get into the range of FidoNet connections, or what telecom pricing trends will means, etc.).
(Again, I am making no arguments here for or against the subsidization of students or employees. Merely commenting on a competitive fact of life about the Net.)
--Tim May
I yield... I was overly sensitive to anything that might be construed to be continuing the idea that the Internet is mostly Gov. funded... I should have known that you knew better. (I'll plead cronic exhaustion: 15 hour days for the last week to finish a project... slippery fingers deleted 1500/5MB worth of email last night... One way to catch up.) I agree with your point. sdw -- Stephen D. Williams Local Internet Gateway Co.; SDW Systems 513 496-5223APager LIG dev./sales Internet: sdw@lig.net OO R&D Source Dist. By Horse: 2464 Rosina Dr., Miamisburg, OH 45342-6430 Comm. Consulting ICBM: 39 34N 85 15W I love it when a plan comes together Newbie Notice: (Surfer's know the score...) I speak for LIGCo., CCI, myself, and no one else, regardless of where it is convenient to post from or thru.
participants (3)
-
Eli Brandt -
sdw＠meaddata.com -
tcmay＠netcom.com