Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/21/84; site styx.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lognet2!styx!mcb
From: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Possible cost saving method for backbone sites
Message-ID: <16420@styx.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Nov-85 20:11:32 EST
Article-I.D.: styx.16420
Posted: Thu Nov 21 20:11:32 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Nov-85 10:29:09 EST
References: <18@Cascade.ARPA> <639@magic.UUCP>
Reply-To: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Followup-To: net.news
Distribution: net
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, CA
Lines: 44
Xref: linus net.news:3609 net.news.group:3993
Summary: How about leased lines & PDNS?

I think the key to keeping the net afloat under the increasing traffic
load is to explore ways of cooperatively cutting down transmission
costs. One of the reasons that the majority of news transport occurs
on 1200-baud telephone lines is that most sites already have dial-in
or dial-out modems, and telephone bills are often not separately
accounted for in an organization.

This has led to a topology that boggles the mind. Now that we seem to
be at the bursting point (although I personally don't agree with the
doom and gloom articles posted here recently) it might be time to look
at some collective organization and planning.

One approach is Stargate, and plenty has been written about that, so
it need not be treated here.  Another is to attempt to replace the
costly, inefficient Usenet backbone with some more modern technology:
specifically, use of public data networks (PDNs) and, where appropriate, 
leased lines for local traffic.

The backbone sites have huge phone bills because they receive/transmit
articles over long-distance telephone lines at a slow speed. Couldn't
some of this be replaced by use of PDNs and leased lines? I know that
cost-per-packet for short and medium-haul data transmission is at its
lowest point ever. The field is intensively competitive (with
bottlenecks, like the telcos), and many sites will not need additional
hardware.

The drawback is that you have to make a specific financial committment
to Usenet, buy the necessary hardware, install the necessary software,
and pay monthly charges that probably won't disappear in the
departmental budget. Not every site is going to be able to do that,
but it's the backbone sites and those who are one hop away that (by
definition) carry the most traffic.  In the long run, it'll be MUCH
cheaper. Then there are the organizations that have existing internal
data networks -- can't these be used to a greater extent for news
transport?

At the lowest level, some sites will want to install dedicated lines
to their news neighbor(s). Wouldn't you rather have a 9600-bps
conditioned line to your (single) feed than deal with a huge phone
bill? They're not cheap, but neither is the existing situation.

Michael C. Berch
mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
{akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb