Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!amdahl!gam
From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Why the net didn't die, or perhaps why it did
Message-ID: <1019@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Jan-85 01:25:39 EST
Article-I.D.: amdahl.1019
Posted: Thu Jan 24 01:25:39 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jan-85 21:38:46 EST
References: <216@looking.UUCP> <2257@nsc.UUCP>
Organization: Blue Mouse Trailer Resort, Hellmouth, CA
Lines: 29

I've noticed that when we have had political discussions in
ca.politics (a CA-only newsgroup), the quality was much better
than net.politics.  I attribute this simply to the smaller numbers
of people envolved, and the ease with which you could follow the
(fewer) threads of discussion.

If the net "falls apart", it will probably splinter into regional
nets, because this would generate a smaller stream of articles.
(This appears to be the concern, that there are "too many" articles).

I would rather this came about naturally, however, instead of
some "clever" person (Mr. Vance?) deciding who is "worthy" of
using the network.  "Naturally" means that one by one sites will
say "sorry, we don't take 'net' distribution anymore" and limit
it to regional groups (hey, I'm still proposing a 'west'
distribution!).

This would be good and bad, of course.  The quality of regional
nets would improve, I suspect, but for the most part they may be cut
off from each other: who will want to transmit (and pay for) all of the
New England stuff to the West Coast?  Alas, the pool of knowledge
(and other stuff) is reduced.

Stargate may solve this problem; any technology that lowers the
cost of Usenet will help maintain its current topography.  But if
the 'regional net' scenario results -- well, it won't be a complete
tragedy, just a different sort of net.
-- 
Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam