Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!dogie!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!lll-tis!lll-winken!abhg!carpet!bill
From: bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: The death of USENET
Message-ID: <97@carpet.WLK.COM>
Date: 14 Jun 88 05:15:01 GMT
References: <7475@swan.ulowell.edu> <2645@rpp386.UUCP> <91@carpet.WLK.COM> <267@mjbtn.UUCP>
Reply-To: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy)
Followup-To: news.admin
Distribution: na
Organization: W.L. Kennedy Jr. and Associates
Lines: 63

In article <267@mjbtn.UUCP> root@mjbtn.UUCP (Mark J. Bailey) writes:
>
[ I already stuck in my $.02 so I'll restrict this to clarifying some things
  in Mark's article.  I agree with him, completely, there are some nit picking
  details that need illumination.  All but those deleted ]

>similar to what happened on satellite TV.  For a long time, a home dish owner
>could indulge in the best of programming for just the cost of the dish and

Mark makes a much clearer analogy than I did, I didn't figure the price track
between satellite receivers (yes, I have one) and PC's (yes I have one).

>potential costs (income NOT realized by the cable industry) soared.  It was
>inevitable that some type of control or action would have to be taken by the
>cable industry.

The difference here is that the satellite programmers are gouging the dish
owner to several multiples of what the cable subscriber pays.  AT&T offers,
as an alternative, pass through mail via an existing service at existing
prices.  They aren't making up a new industry or extorting what they can get,
they are suggesting an alternative way to do what they now decline to do for
free.  The analogy isn't perfect, but it is pertinent.

>  Of course, as many of you are aware, there is now almost
>complete scrambling of all services that one would consider worth-while.  They
>even scramble the network feeds and sporting events.

Not entirely, but this is news.admin, not rec.hate.HBO.  There's still good
stuff up there that isn't scrambled, but there will be no mail passed through
AT&T to non-AT&T sites.  I'm non-AT&T and I support their decision.

>as much in.  I have heard that the volume of traffic over JJ was phenominal.
>No doubt this surge in traffic through the AT&T network was the straw that 
>broke the camels back.

I'd love to blame it on our profligacy, but this move was in the works long
before JJ appeared.  Nonetheless, let's blame it on him! :-)

>There is no simple solution.  With the cable satellite industry, 
>efforts by home dish owners to have Congress ban scrambling, had no effect
>and led (in part) to a new communcations act (1986) that made illegal
>receiving signals for which one was not authorized.

Here the analogy is near perfect, stings, ouch!  The cable industry has clout,
the mere voter has none...  but this is news.admin.  If AT&T says "I want my
resources used in a fashion that closer resembles how I want my business to
work"  then that is a decision made (and enforced) in the traditions this
nation was founded on.  Mark's union/management (deleted) example applies to
this too.  There is no political intrigue here, just the conclusion of a free
ride.  AT&T (unlike our Congress) offers an alternative we can take or leave.

>AT&T has given much to Usenet.  But he who giveths
>can taketh away, and who are WE to complain?

Here here!  No one should try to diminish the tremendous boost that AT&T has
given Usenet.  Someone pointed out in this or news.groups, that they
didn't say anything about news, just that they won't accept mail for a
destination that isn't in their company network.  I find that awfully
difficult to criticize.  I'm not now, nor have ever been affiliated with
AT&T.  I bought one of their computers and one of their phones, that's it...
And yeah, my phone bill's too high too :-)
-- 
Bill Kennedy  Internet:  bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
                Usenet:  { killer | att-cb | ihnp4!tness7 }!ssbn!bill