Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!rsweeney
From: rsweeney@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Sweeney)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: The death of USENET
Message-ID: <4963@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jun 88 02:34:54 GMT
References: <7475@swan.ulowell.edu> <2645@rpp386.UUCP> <56228@sun.uucp> <8545@netsys.UUCP>
Reply-To: rsweeney@dasys1.UUCP (Robert Sweeney)
Organization: The Big Electric Cat, New York, NY
Lines: 44

In article <8545@netsys.UUCP> len@netsys.UUCP (Len Rose) writes:
>Is there any way to formalize Chuq's proposals,and get them acted on
>by the net at large? Or should I say the "backbone" at large.. Binary
>and noise groups being deleted would reduce overall traffic by at
>least 30 percent. Eliminating microcomputer groups should be held off
>as long as possible since pc's play an important part in today's 
>computing environment and are often part of a Unix oriented network.

Over the *USENET*, definately.  However, I think that simply eliminating
the non-Unix-oriented groups isn't exactly the answer.  It's time to do
what we've had to do for a long time: develop alternate networks for the
various different categories of news.  Here at dasys1 (the Big Electric
Cat), we plan to keep receving any and all newsgroups we can get our
hands on, provided that our users remain interested in reading them.  BEC
exists primarily for news and mail, and we'll expand resources as necessary
to handle them.  There are doubtless other sites which will continue to
carry all the various categories.  Sites wishing to carry non-technical
groups might be forced to develop their own network.  I don't think there's
anything wrong or unreasonable about that.

>The net should never have been turned into a "bbs" and when the ax
>falls on {rec,soc,talk} _the sooner the better_ .. My apologies to
>those who think otherwise , but professional concerns should take
>precedence.

Depends on your point of view.  If your principal concern is keeping your
users informed on various topics in the computer world, then it's sensible
to only carry the computer-oriented groups.  In most cases users don't
pay directly for the services they receive through the net.  The people who
are paying ought to be able to limit access accordingly.

Here, and on several other public access sites, the users do pay directly
for the services they receive through our net connections (yes, I know, they
depend on links between many other sites, but what this system offers is
paid for directly by users, and we'll carry any through traffic other sites
want to send through us as our 'share').  Their support fees will go toward
paying for our share of an alternate hierarchy if one is developed.  I'd
imagine that many other systems will do the same thing.  

That's the way it'll eventually be.
-- 
Robert Sweeney              {sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!rsweeney
Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix (212) 879-9031 - System Operator
You do it because you're drunk, you're numb, and you just don't care.