Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains:584 comp.mail.uucp:5738 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!athene!pcg From: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains,comp.mail.uucp,uk.misc Subject: Re: UKC and mail prices Message-ID: Date: 14 Jan 91 20:44:08 GMT References: <1533@tharr.UUCP> <1990Dec23.222645.13580@trevan.uucp> <1990Dec27.110842.6350@micromuse.co.uk> Sender: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP Organization: Coleg Prifysgol Cymru Lines: 865 Nntp-Posting-Host: odin In-reply-to: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk's message of 31 Dec 90 13:57:54 GMT On 31 Dec 90 13:57:54 GMT, I had written: pcg> B) The EUnet and the UKnet backbone (and most national backbones) pcg> will boyocott traffic between one of their customers and another of pcg> their customers, if the ultimate source/destination is not a pcg> customer _and_ is running the UUCP protocols _and_ is located in pcg> Europe. [ ... ] pcg> Note: the boycott applies *only* to traffic with "competing" pcg> European UUCP networks -- the EUnet/UKnet do not boycott UUCP pcg> traffic outside Europe (USENET), or non UUCP traffic within Europe pcg> (EARN), even if the other party is not a EUnet/UKnet customer (in pcg> which case the party which is a customer has to pay for both the pcg> mail it sends and that which it receives). Some people have expressed skepticism. Well, here is a digest of an exchange of one year agho on the subject. I have not deleted or mended any part of the text, just reflown it here and there to enhance readability. I understand that the situation has improved a very little bit in the meantime. From: teus@fs1-cg.oce.nl (Teus Hagen) Subject: Re: i2ack request for news/email supply connection Message-ID: <1035@oce-rd1.oce.nl> Date: 16 Jan 89 13:32:43 GMT Organization: EUUG The news costs in Europe, and students cannot afford news in Europe: Transport of data over an ocean costs money. The way to make news available to as many as possble readers in Europe is either sharing the (PTT) costs, or have someone fully pay for it. The last solution: nobody has stand up to do it (in the past DEC and Philips did it, thanks). So we have the first: sharing of transport costs. This is a very riscy situation: ie if someone does gets it cheaper via other routes initially, and will supply others, he will cause a snowball running of cheap intermediate news, destroy the current situation, end finally end up in the same situation of EUnet news: more costs. Sites will jump from one snowball to the other..., creating problematic situations for existing service providers in the intermediate time. So think carefully if one will try to start such connections. At this moment the costs for news articles consists of three basics: 1)US link costs (because of sharing the costs and cheap bulk connection the costs is quite low) from Us to European central node. Cost is dependent to the amount of European news subscribers. So really very low costs. 2)costs from European central node to the national backbone. Costs are rather low, as divided by national news subscribers. 3)costs from national backbone to the news subscriber. This is the main costs. What you see is that due to the large amount of subscribers costs are basically caused by the national siruation. For i2ack it means: get as many as possible subscribers hooked up to the national italian backbone! And your costs will be lower as they can be done now (do not expect that others will carry your subscription costs for a longer period!). Or do not parasitize on European news subscribers. The same rules apply for email. As currently rented lines are used for some connections (eg US-Europe). So with fixed prices, email transport costs are shared as well. I hope I've explained why I, personally will not honor such a connection request. teus hagen ____________________________ This note does not necessarily represent the position of Oce-Nederland b.v.. Therefore no liability or responsibility for whatever will be accepted. From: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) Subject: Re: French and UK sites wanted for EUcon. Message-ID: <55538@pyramid.pyramid.com> Date: 18 Jan 89 20:44:31 GMT Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA >In article <96@i2ack.UUCP> venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) writes: >>Watch out, mcvax and unido rejects mail to/from i2ack since i didn't >>subscribe EUnet.. In article <303@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > Does this mean what I think it does? Does the EUnet backbone reject mail > which has a non-subscribing European site anywhere in the path, i.e. > xyz!mcvax!uunet!i2ack? Yes. Any EUNet backbone will eat any mail to/from any European site that is not a member of EUNet. >If the former, then this is a most blatant violation of the USENET spirit >I have come across. Well, let's see. EUNet is organized something like this: kddlab------\ /---i2unix \ / North_america-----uunet-------mcvax-----unido / \ munnari-----/ \---other_Eu_national_backbones In other words, there is a single point of entry for all traffic outside of EUNet, and major hubs in each country. The topology is designed to minimize the largest cost: crossing international boundaries. Members of EUNet pay both fixed membership costs and packet charges. Some sites, particularly in Germany, have decided to reduce costs by setting up direct North American UUCP links. They are still members of EUNet, though; they pay their annual dues, and use EUNet for continental traffic. They just use their own links for USA traffic because the packet charges are lower. What Paolo is doing is different. He is not an EUNet member. He is instead setting up an alternative network in Europe to compete against EUNet. I know the EUNet folks aren't crazy about this, since it stands to make hash of a lot of hard work. but they aren't trying to interfere with him either; and as far as I can tell, Paolo is having a lot of fun doing this. EUnet is, though, 100% within their rights to refuse to pass mail to or from his site, or any other eucon site. And there is more to it than the old, "it's my site to do with as I please" argument. Consider what's happening here. Since i2ack is not connected to EUNet, there is only one way for him to get mail to EUNet hosts: i2ack->pyramid->uunet->mcvax->EUNet_backbone->EUNet_host This is obviously a lot more expensive than a simple hop within the EUNet, and EUNet is picking up most of the costs. You could argue that i2ack doesn't log- ically appear to EUNet to be any different than any American site, and you'd be right. And that was the case Paolo tried to make to EUNet. But i2ack is *not* a North American site. EUNet has made an exception for North America; the membership has decided that traffic with North America is important, and therefore they will pay for it. In other words, EUNet is doing a tremendous favor to all of us folks on this side of the pond, saying that we are so im- portant to them that they are willing to pay for the priviledge. But they are not about to subsidize other Eurpoeans; everyone pays their own fair share. Paolo is following the traditional Usenet battlecry: "If you don't like this network, set up your own!" And he's putting his money where his mouth is. But you can't expect the network he is competing against to subsidize him. At the least, EUNet runs on a shoestring budget themselves. What's this "spirit" stuff any way? Usually it's a euphamism for, "I'm a poor broke site, so I'll let big rich sites foot my bills." And by golly, a lot of us have done that over the years. But note that one reason the "<>" construct was added to pathalias was because of the number of UUNet subscriber sites who were unwilling to accept passthrough mail. When the money is up front and in plain view, people are a lot more careful. And, frankly, a lot more fair. Even if less democratic. From: venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) Subject: Re: i2ack request for news/email supply connection Message-ID: <102@i2ack.UUCP> Date: 20 Jan 89 01:04:38 GMT Organization: Sublink Headquarters, Milano, Italy In article <1035@oce-rd1.oce.nl>, teus@fs1-cg.oce.nl (Teus Hagen) writes: > The news costs in Europe, and students cannot afford news in Europe: > Transport of data over an ocean costs money. The way to make news available > to as many as possble readers in Europe is either sharing the (PTT) costs, > or have someone fully pay for it. The last solution: nobody has stand up > to do it (in the past DEC and Philips did it, thanks). I had written a long article about costs, and the word "sharing", but i felt it would break my "armistice" with mcvax &C., so i didn't include it. Instead, i would like to ask if it is possible to get the list of costs of EUnet, along with the one for the trafic of i2unix. > So we have the first: sharing of transport costs. > This is a very riscy situation: ie if someone does gets it cheaper via > other routes initially, and will supply others, he will cause a snowball > running of cheap intermediate news, destroy the current situation, > end finally end up in the same situation of EUnet news: more costs. Whom are you talking about? I2ack is on Usenet! It is cheaper for us to have a direct link to USA than paying i2unix! We already have News. > > So think carefully if one will try to start such connections. You didn't get the main point: EUcon is a standalone network. It has gateways on Usenet and wherever we need to go. There are a bunch of EUCON systems which are also on EUnet. Just think of EUcon as EUnet for poor people, and you'll get the idea :-) . > > At this moment the costs for news articles consists of three basics: > 1)US link costs (because of sharing the costs and cheap bulk connection the costs is > quite low) from Us to European central node. quite low? i thought they were very high. > Cost is dependent to the amount of European news subscribers. So really very low costs. Again very low costs. Uhm... > 2)costs from European central node to the national backbone. > Costs are rather low, as divided by national news subscribers. Low costs again. I think we have a different concept of what "a-lot-of-money " is. > 3)costs from national backbone to the news subscriber. This is the main costs. > You SHOULD be right.. but this should be up to the node. I mean, it's me that decide how often to poll the backbone. > What you see is that due to the large amount of subscribers costs are basically > caused by the national siruation. For i2ack it means: get as many as possible > subscribers hooked up to the national italian backbone! ..but in Italy one has to pay for the single SUBSCRIPTION a lot of $$$. Thousands of $$$. This money is spent without sending or receiving a single byte. In addition, one has to pay for the backbone transmission costs, which charges 1024 bytes 0.25 $ , PLUS an yearly additional fee for News. With the same money i buy an X.25 line and go straight to US links. Finally, one has to call its backbone, which -in our case- has a wrong PAD configuration, and allows only 1200 baud phone connections. This is it. > And your costs will be lower as they can be done now (do not expect that others will > carry your subscription costs for a longer period!). Again, i am NOT asking for a news feed in europe. You missed the sense of my message. > Or do not parasitize on European news subscribers. I don't feel like a parasite. If anyone on EUnet wants to send mail to US through us, he can do it. Anyway, my previous message meant this: we are looking for new nodes, so that we can forward mail in Europe without routing through EUnet backbones. That's it. The problem seems not to be the "transatlantic" link with uunet: EUnet wants money also for sending within its nodes. Also if nodes are willing to get the mail, to forward it etc., backbones stop it. Finally, i would like to point out that i2ack is just a node. Our network is called Sublink, and actually has half the number of nodes i2unix has. If EUnet would allow our mail coming from uunet to reach europe (as for a common bunch of nodes on Usenet), we would offer exactly the same service as i2unix, for FREE. We are not supported by anyone: if we got the money i2unix asks his nodes, i would buy a Sperry 5050 too. Greetings, Paolo -- Paolo Ventafridda Via Ottoboni 6,20148 Milano - Italy Tel.+392-4032432 EUnet:blue@altger eucon:venta@i2ack BANG:{pyramid,altger,tmpmbx}!i2ack!venta # If you mail me on i2ack, use pyramid path; i'm on eunet's lock-list..(sic) # From: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) Subject: Re: French and UK sites wanted for EUcon. Message-ID: <459@eda.com> Date: 21 Jan 89 08:57:16 GMT In article <105@i2ack.UUCP> venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) writes: # # Previous message from Carl (csg@pyramid) perfectly describes the situation: # i myself took notice of this, and i am doing my best to "lock" (reject) # outgoing mail out of uunet and eucon. That is, any mail on EUnet. # Some user on Sublink still didn't get this limitation.. # # At least these messages on EUnet and Usenet described how the whole # thing works :-) # Paolo I may be incorrect on how I understand this but: 1. Eucon nodes can send mail to the world, except for Eunet. 2. Eunet nodes can send mail to the world, except for Eucon. 3. The world can send mail to either, as long as they don't attempt to send it *thru* the other. In the above, receive/from can be substituted for send/to. In the above Sublink appears to be synonymous with Eucon. I feel appalled that in this time of increased connectivity, we now are creating a situation in which some people on Usenet cannot communicate with other people on Usenet. I have no desire to cast blame on anyone, but I feel that this situation is unacceptable. jim -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim domain: jim@eda.com From: wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) Subject: Re: French and UK sites wanted for EUcon. Message-ID: <308@dcs.UUCP> Date: 22 Jan 89 14:34:19 GMT In article <32219@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Bill Wisner writes: >>I feel appalled that in this time of increased connectivity, we now >>are creating a situation in which some people on Usenet cannot >>communicate with other people on Usenet. > >Picture: a EUCon user sends mail to pyramid, to uunet, to EUNet. >Simple enough, no? It would be, except a recent posting indicated that the EUNet backbone sites will throw out anything with the name of a EUCon site (or for that matter, any European site which is not registered with EUNet) anywhere in the path. This is where I have my problem with this system: I can understand and accept that EUNet does not want to pass mail from one unregistered site to another, but as long as either the destination or the origin of a message is within EUNet, they ought to pass it on, as a courtesy to their own member sites. If they do not do that, then I question (as a USENIX member) whether UUNET should allow them reduced rate or free access to uunet -- they are not legitimately fulfilling the gateway function which is the basis for their special treatment. I am in a situation where I might soon be moving to Europe, and will probably join the national User Group in whichever country I go to, and thus become a registered EUNet site. I do not want EUNet telling me who I can correspond with, after I pay whatever membership or access charges apply. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD From: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) Subject: Re: i2ack request for news/email supply connection Message-ID: <56046@pyramid.pyramid.com> Date: 22 Jan 89 20:21:43 GMT In article <102@i2ack.UUCP>, venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) writes: > In addition, one has to pay for the backbone transmission costs, which > charges 1024 bytes 0.25 $ , PLUS an yearly additional fee for News. In article <9198@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> mangler@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Don Speck) writes: >If that's U.S. dollars, that's a HUNDRED times the average cost per >kilobyte that Brian Reid estimates in his monthly readership summaries. > >If this is accurate: Why does Eunet have to cost so much? The (typical) cost that EUNet must pay to their X.25 provider is approximately $0.19 per kilobyte (actually $12 per kilosegment), plus $12/hour connect time, plus monthly service fees that run from $500 to $1500 per month. Work it out, and you'll find EUNet isn't exactly raking in the bucks. These links are also fairly slow, which limits traffic in a practical sense. Generally, dialup is not an effective alternative (more expensive and less reliable), and Trail- Blazers aren't legal. And you wonder why the Europeans complain about Dinnette-For-Sale ads? The big problem in Europe isn't a monopolistic EUNet; it's monopolistic and paranoid PTTs (Post-Telephone-Telegraph). From: wisner@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bill Wisner) Subject: Re: French and UK sites wanted for EUcon. Message-ID: <32389@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Date: 24 Jan 89 02:32:19 GMT By now it is quite clear that EUnet does, indeed, torch mail from EUcon, regardless of how it arrived. So I'll hop on the bandwagon and start flaming them. As far as EUnet is concerned, EUcon sites should look exactly like normal North American USENET sites. Making an artificial and arbitrary distinction is revolting. But it's hardly the first revolting thing they have ever done. Soon after I first registered killer as killer.dallas.tx.us, I got a piece of bounced mail from mcvax. The attached error message rather nastily informed me that "US" was not a valid top-level domain, and that mcvax would not pass mail from bogus domains. (That action alone might, possibly, conceivably, be excusable, but if they are going to do it they had better at least get their facts straight.) From: venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) Subject: Re: French and UK sites wanted for EUcon. Message-ID: <118@i2ack.UUCP> Date: 24 Jan 89 09:59:29 GMT Organization: Sublink Headquarters, Milano, Italy In article <2162@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: > In article <459@eda.com> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: > > I would suggest that RIDICULOUS is a far better choice. I would call it TRAGICAL.. > > BTW my reading of the previous articles on this situation was a little > different. I believe that the newer of the two nets was happy to forward > mail to it's internal sites that originated from the other (after it got > sent to US and back) but the original network refused to forward mail to > it's internal sites that originated from the newer network. Correct. I will also make an example of what's currently going on now. There's an EUnet node here (an i2unix one) which will be posting it's mail for USA and receive News from us. Anyone which can reach us, can go through our links (at least on SUBLINK). > > Seems as though the original network has higher internal costs and wants > everyone to play with their ball and bat to help them recoup their costs. For sure EUnet has high costs. I asked about them , but i got no answer. Probably the News traffic takes most of it. Personally, i don't agree with receiving news groups such as soc. and rec. and anything which is not related to The Art Of Computing Or Backboning (comp. news.). Better, i'd like to receive them, sure, but since they cost too much money, let's forget them. The main problem is that - from my point of view - EUnet spends too much. Costs are shared, but who can afford them? Few people. So there are 2 main categories of hosts on EUnet: rich sites (some of these very generous, which would support us for free, i.e. PAYING for OUR connections - but EUnet complains.) and normal sites, some of which are given the B.F.B.P.A. ( Best Friend of the Backbone's Postmaster Award ) and pay nothing for EUnet, since their backbone simply charge the others.. > > I would think that if the newer net is indeed less expensive then the > situation will indeed sort itself out. Over time newer sites will connect to > the less expensive of the two nets and some sites will switch or connect to > both. NO. EUnet is a strong network; it works fine, except for costs. We cannot offer the same services, not now and not in the future. My personal wish is that someday EUcon will grow up, and allow sites which cannot afford EUnet to exchange mail all the same. There is a BIG difference among - say - i2ack and i2unix (no relationship among "i2": they claimed it was copyrighted but it was not, so i didn't change the name, what the hell): i2unix offers a fast and reliable mail service. It polls mcvax once every 30-60 minutes. I poll pyramid 3 times a day. I don't care about receiving a letter one day later, and SUBLINK does not offer such efficiency. We point to the cheapest way of networking, within a decent result. This policy is just fine for some people, while for others it's not. This reminds me a conversation i had with a local EUnet postmaster (a woman) who ended up saying: " You said we can have a link, but how often do you poll USA ?" " ..well..3 times a day, it depends.." "Ah-ah! You see: i2unix polls mcvax once every hour!" " I know. But how often do YOU poll i2unix [ at 2400 baud via phone call ]?" "Once a night! It costs money! " Here, we have a good example of a problem of costs: this silly postmaster could have accepted my offer (no money..good offer i think!) but went for i2unix cause they have a better service. COURSE THEY HAVE! You pay 4 that! So this node does not receive News. They cost too much. Stupid woman.. She was talking about a next domain for Italy ( .ita ), and did not realized that italy is out of the network right now. Did you ever see a message here coming from an italian site (not i2unix)? Its impossible. The only one i saw was on eunet.test (i read that in germany) some time ago. Very few nodes receive News in Italy; the total amount of nodes is 44 , many of which are FAKE nodes (DEAD hosts, or such..). However i2unix did not think about taking only a few newsgroups, and leave the others for better times. They got them all. -- Paolo Ventafridda Via Ottoboni 6,20148 Milano - Italy Tel.+392-4032432 EUnet:blue@altger EUcon:venta@i2ack BANG:{pyramid,altger,tmpmbx}!i2ack!venta # This signature on i2unix costs 70 Lire (240 bytes); a phone call costs 80 L.# From: news@oresoft.uu.net (Randy Bush) Subject: Re: i2ack request for news/email supply connection Message-ID: <606@oresoft.uu.net> Date: 26 Jan 89 17:33:25 GMT In article <56046@pyramid.pyramid.com> Carl S. Gutekunst writes: >These links are also fairly slow, which limits traffic in a practical sense. Interestingly, FidoNet (for which I run the netmail equialent of uunet) uses the ackless Zmodem streaming protocol, which is somewhat more efficient over X.25 links than uucp-g. Originally, FidoNet was XModem, which was abyssmal; but, as the costs were coming out of individuals' pockets, the fix was quick. >Generally, dialup is not an effective alternative (more expensive and less >reliable), and TrailBlazers aren't legal. We have found dialup to NL or CH (at 2400 or PEP) to be as reliable as X.25, but, having no big corporate support, must use dial-up X.28 to get to X.25. Telebits are approved in many European countries and in Australia. FidoNet uses Telebits (or Telebit clones such as Ventel's) quite heavily for overseas as well as intra-continental links. BTW, FidoNet is seriously testing the new lower-cost symmetric V.32s, as we are not addicted to the g-spoofing, and have a true full-duplex protocol (Janus) available which makes the puppies really scream. I am not in any way saying that FidoNet is better (or worse) than USENET. I use both, and, in fact, gate between them. Just trying to give some perspective from a net that uses different technology. -- {mcvax!uunet,tektronix,reed,sun!nosun}!oresoft!news (Randy Bush) From: venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) Subject: Re: Map for i2ack Summary: maps from italy Message-ID: <123@i2ack.UUCP> Date: 26 Jan 89 19:25:47 GMT Organization: Sublink Headquarters, Milano, Italy In article <7075@mailgw.cc.umich.edu>, emv@a.cc.umich.edu (Ed Vielmetti) writes: > > well, then, you'd need an alternative map coordinator for italy. > collect all the site information and ship off the map to rutgers, > and see if Mel will publish it. > Now I don't see i2ack in the pyramid map, so I can't get there > from here automatically, but I'll put that in my local paths file > and be done with it. Then there's the small matter of getting > maps for all of i2ack's attached sites.... As in the signature, i am the actual map coordinator. Since we are receiving these days a lot of subscriptions, i am just waiting for a definite situation. I posted my map here just to let it go around a bit; i know i need to send it to rutgers, but until things are fixed here i won't. For instance, i2ack is now being replaced as a News Feed by "deejay", the main sponsor for SUBlink, and the only one with a Trailblazer Plus: our 3 Trailblazer T1000 won't get here before some time. Also on international calls, the Telebit performs pretty well, i.e. around 7000 bit/s using g proto. With f proto it should go much faster. Probably we could approach 10000 ( not a so bad line..). Let's consider the slowest speed (7000): last night the average transfer rate was around 80 seconds for 50+ Kbytes. On Itapac - according to what I2unix told me - this would cost 300 Lire for each K = 15000 Lire. Our transfer did not cost more that 2700. If we were using f proto, i think we could gain the 2000< limit. This means anyway from 5 to 7 times cheaper transfers. As far as A.Berni (postmaster@i2unix), mcvax DOES HAVE a Trailblazer too! So..PTT is the real problem? Lets face it. We are talking about lowering down costs 5-7 . If all of this mess i caused on EUnet will bring the network to use faster connections and lower down prices, i won't care too much of mail rejection. Cause i will afford paying eunet and being an official european site. Greets, Paolo -- Paolo Ventafridda Via Ottoboni 6,20148 Milano - Italy Tel.+392-4032432 EUnet:blue@altger EUcon:venta@i2ack BANG:{pyramid,altger,tmpmbx}!i2ack!venta SUBLINK Maps & Network management , Italy \/ "Please don't shoot the Operator" From: venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) Subject: Re: i2ack request for news/email supply connection Message-ID: <124@i2ack.UUCP> Date: 29 Jan 89 20:42:58 GMT In article <967@acer.stl.stc.co.uk>, dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes: > In article <1989Jan23.183420.7803@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > I think the i2ack problem is > that the Italian gateway i2unix that he would have used if he were not > 'independant' wanted to make very high charges (maybe they don't have > many users, so their costs per user are very high? So they don't have > many users...? I don't know why really, this is just a guess). They don't have users nor sites. Have a look at the map and try calling the #E people, like i did. Actually, the .it domain is a dozen of systems. Many of them, cannot call X.25 (if they call through X.28, i2unix's pad won't work - its buggy); so they call through phone line. I2unix has 2 phone port, one of which is a 2400 baud line. A friend of us - EUnet registered on i2unix - told us he simply cant poll i2unix because line is always busy! Anyway, a long distance call to i2unix is just the same as calling abroad. In November i2unix proposed to the i2net community to buy Trailbalzer modems. Since not everybody agreed (they *cost money), still they go at 2400. > > I understand that there are THREE sites in Italy which want to be considered > the Italian Gateway, and that all three claim the right to the .it domain. really, who's the third? don't tell me its the OLD italian backbone (delphi)! I am curious on this, and anyway, the problem of .it domain is a real one. Let's try thinking in these terms: if we (sublink) want to be registered on Usenet as legitimate italian network, what domain should we apply for? > I can believe that - it's typical Italy! Italy is a lovely place, good food, > nice people, but it's also DIFFERENT in ways that can really confuse the rest > of us! (thanks for food etc.) - but we are not confusing anyone: until now, i didn't send any map to rutgers, and i won't until we'll be ready to. We are all discussing in news.sysadmin, and i believe this is the best place to get opinions, suggestions etc. BEFORE doing anything. > (Actually it never was in Italy - they have dozens of 'phone companies there, > though most are very small and local). Uhm. The Only Phone Company here is SIP (aaargh). No Other Phone Companies. > So can you use a Trailblazer in Europe? Depends on which country you are > in. I think they are legal here now (UK), they aren't in Germany, and I > doubt anyone cares in Italy. Well, in a big city like Rome usually you wait for 1 year to get your own phone (at home). SIP is working quite hard right now, i understand they are trying their best, but i think for too much time they sat looking around and talking of the future.. > In most of Europe, we haven't even noticed the existance of > Eucon. As far as I know it is an Italian problem, though because traffic > to America etc. goes via other European backbone sites, they are involved too. Eucon is a recent thing. But if you talk about Italy, use < Sublink >. > I do think it's sad if a (very small) group of European > sites do this, though, as it causes confusion all round. It would be better > if they would make their own links into the Eunet too, and pay their share - > I'm sure they could find a more reasonable feed if they tried, even if > perhaps not in Italy. HEY I TRIED THAT. I CALLED UNIDO ASKING FOR AN ACCESS. AND MCVAX SAID THAT UNTIL I2UNIX SAYS "OK" WE ARE LOCKED TO THE ITALIAN BACKBONE. > our Italian friend uses an account (blue) at altger (a German site on the > EUnet), so presumably he cannot find an Italian public access site. SUBLINK offers public access sites for free. No other public accesses are available in italy. And i tell you, there's a *lot of people which really enjoyed getting a Usenet address. > Perhaps what he should really do is set one up, and get enough users > to spread those high connection charges, rather than try and start a > new net, bringing confusion to both Europe and America. NO. Until we'll get a subscription to i2unix WITHOUT paying those RIDICOLOUS yearly 6000+$ we won't EVER register EUnet. Do you realize that - aside the subscription - one has to pay for: 1) it's own transmission costs. And calling i2unix is a LONG distance call. And at 2400 like that, getting news costs too much. 2) it's mail trafic (0.25$ for 1024 bytes). This kind of costs is fine for big companies or for winners B.F.B.P.A. As i2unix declared: " We are not interested in supporting small sites ". That's it. SUBLINK is made of small sites, and as soon as we reach the needed number, we'll start asking for our own domain, you bet it. -- Paolo Ventafridda Via Ottoboni 6,20148 Milano - Italy Tel.+392-4032432 EUnet:blue@altger EUcon:venta@i2ack BANG:{pyramid,altger,tmpmbx}!i2ack!venta SUBLINK Maps & Network management , Italy \/ "Please don't shoot the Operator" From: mike@krondor.UUCP (Mike Hoffmann) Subject: Re: An apology, and a question (about uucp in Germany) Message-ID: <1631@krondor.UUCP> Date: 22 Jun 89 20:16:34 GMT In article <786@redsox.bsw.com> campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) writes: >Recently a student in Germany posted a "Hello, anyone out there, please >post if you can hear me, because receiving mail costs me money" message >to alt.sources. >I flamed him (although mildly, I thought at the time) for causing such >a waste of net bandwidth. >Apparently he took the flame very personally and was hurt. For that, >I apologize. There is absolutly NO need to appologize, I know him personally, and he is an idiot. What he did went beyond normal human ignorance or even stupidity. (I hope he reads this, but I might have some additional words for him, when I next see him) >Now, my question (and I'd prefer to get answers only from people in Germany, >who know, rather than people in the US, who are guessing). What is going on I am german. :-) Looks like I'm in a flaming mood. :-) So here goes: >in Germany that makes getting a news feed so unbelievably expensive? I am >I really don't understand this. Who do you have to pay the $200 to? Neither do I! The german backbone is "unido" that is the University of Dortmund. They *charge* that amount of money! Simple phone transfer costs are *not* included. What they charge that for, especially considering the number of links they feed, is beyond me, and anyone I asked. We tried to find some terms of agreement that would give us ("us" is the Sub-Net, a loose connection of private netnews-sites) cheaper rates. This path has somehow ended in bureaucratic bog. >In the US, you just find a local Usenet site with a friendly system >administrator and set up a uucp link. If it's a local call, it's free. >What prevents you from doing that in Germany? Even if local calls >aren't free, $200/month seems hard to believe (I suspect that, with >decent modems, I could get a full feed from California for less than >that, at night time rates). Well, we even tried polling a US site directly! But sadly, site boulder doesn't appear to be very stable, though I had thought it to be an Internet-backbone. Tight budget calculation showed, that with present unido prices, we would go much less expensive by paying the plane, but direct trans-atlantic rates. >I could maybe understand people chipping in to defray the costs of the >transatlantic traffic, but $200 per month per site?? There are presently >235 sites listed in the German uucp map; $200 x 235 = $47,000, and I >can NOT believe that it costs $47,000 per month just to get Usenet >traffic across the ocean!! You exactly got the point... :-( *Noone* can tell me it costs that much. Even if not all poll unido directly. A cost-distribution system would make it almost free for everyone. unido claims that they have administrational problems to do so, and I'm almost inclined to believe them, as german bureaucracy in the educational area is unbelievable. I post this, though I don't really expect it to go out. So I will mail it as well. I think I accumulated enough new enemies for now! Cheers Mike -- Mike Hoffmann ! It's difficult to soar with Eagles Fasangartenstr. 102 ! When you have to work with Turkeys D-8000 Munich 90 ! 089/6801110 ! UUCP :...!boulder!gopnbg!chiuur!krondor!mike From: dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) Subject: Re: An apology, and a question (about uucp in Germany) Message-ID: <1550@stl.stc.co.uk> Date: 24 Jun 89 09:41:27 GMT To those who wonder why news is so expensive in many European countries, I suggest you print off the postscript news distribution maps that Brian Ried has posted in news.lists. You will see that many countries have very few news sites (and many sites have mail but not news). It costs $$$$ to bring news across the Atlantic, but that cost is spread over many sites. Unfortunately it also costs $$$ to transport news across national boundaries, and where there are only a few sites to share this cost, plus the costs of the national backbone site, news is expensive. Because it is expensive, few sites participate, and so it stays expensive. The EUUG subsidises the Eunet to some extent, but most costs have to be paid by the participating sites. There is some hope of government subsidy in the future (the CEC may pay for a fast European network), which would put us in a similar position to much of the US (though with civil rather than military funding), but at present the user must pay. Some posters have suggested that European sites should 'get a Trailblazer and import news directly'. Well, TB's would help, so lots of us are getting them (UKUUG has negociated a discount on them, as have some other national UUG's), but are not *that* magic. A news feed from the US of all technical groups - leaving out all talk and most rec as at present in Europe - would cost about $50,000 per year in transmission costs over IPSS (X.25), but only about $10,000 via Trailblazer. Would you pay $10K for news? Some would, but not many. So we have to club together to cover transmission costs to our national backbones. We also have to pay for the associated computer and staff costs -- most Eunet backbone sites are universities, and being both non-profitmaking and also less well endowed than many US universities they cannot absorb the cost of providing a service to lots of other establishments that are not directly associated, (why should the University of Kent (ukc) subsidise STC or University Dortmund (unido) subsidise netmbx? Explain your reasons using not more than 5000 words. Your paper will be marked by the University's auditors). Some sites declare 'UDI' - good luck to them. If they make all their own arrangements to deliver and pick up their mail, they incur no costs on the rest of us. But in practice this is very difficult, and so such sites find they do need to use the Eunet, and thus cannot avoid a duty to share its costs. I should point out that most sites in Europe work in the same way as in the USA - we pass on news/mail to other sites without charge, on a 'you call us' basis, accepting the costs we incurr in managing a news/mail feed to others as a fair exchange for the same boon others give us. But this cannot apply to the backbone sites that move news across international boundaries: such costs do not balance out. In the UK we are lucky - with over 400 sites on the UK net, news costs per site are reasonable. Volume is so high that ukc now has a leased line to mcvax (which as you may know has a fast leased line to uunet). The actual mail costs per kByte have reduced considerably as a result. But we still have some problems here with mail costs. Ukc makes no charge for handling mail within the UK (except for a quarterly subscription to commercial sites), but they do pass on their communications costs of 2 pence (about 3 cents) per kbyte for international mail. Some sites decide they cannot pay this, so ukc reject international mail to/from them. They may appear in UK maps, and receive UK mail OK, but foreign mail is bounced: this can be very confusing to the foreign senders! If anyone has any suggestions on how else to deal with this, other than that those who do pay should subsidise those who won't, I'm sure we'd like to hear them. Even in the UK the subscription cost of a news feed ($50 per month), very reasonable for any commercial organisation, is too much for someone trying to get their own news feed to their own home computer, and I understand it is higher in Germany. Such people could sign up with a public access site, and read news there instead of trying to get it all on their own machine. In Germany, netmbx (Berlin) offers very reasonable rates for news reading (plus a little more if you post). I do not know which news groups netmbx gets. Mail me if you want their PSS number. I regret that I do not know a UK public access site, though I believe they exist. -- Regar -- Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk