Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!lll-tis!mcb
From: mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: The death of USENET
Summary: ...is greatly exaggerated.
Message-ID: <22270@tis.llnl.gov>
Date: 14 Jun 88 21:14:07 GMT
References: <7475@swan.ulowell.edu> <2645@rpp386.UUCP> <56228@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore CA
Lines: 42

Chuq and I are usually on the same wavelength, but there are some
fundamental assumptions that I think we disagree on here.  First of
all, the realignment of the way AT&T handles external mail is unlikely
to have a significant effect on Usenet at all.  Why the AT&T
announcement should have triggered all these doom & gloom
predictions I don't know, particularly since Usenet (news) is not
involved at all and net-wide mail, except to some hangers-on, will also
probably not be affected dramatically either.

My main point, though, is that there is no reason why Usenet cannot
continue to be "everything for everybody" -- the only change may be
that the volume may be such that fewer sites will choose to have FULL
feeds.  Some sites, for budgetary or policy reasons, may need to go on 
a diet; there is no reason that Usenet as a whole -- and all that
really is is the namespace of netwide groups -- needs to go on a
diet.  Why "cut" (which I assume means rmgroup on a netwide basis)
ANYTHING?  If people can't afford it, or don't want it, they don't
have to carry it or pass it.  That is the way it has always been.

I have always been very careful to avoid making judgments based on the
value of one newsgroup vs. another; comp.risks may contain a much more
refined level of dialogue than talk.bizarre, and may be more
"objectively" useful, but I think the primary purpose of Usenet is to
serve the needs of its (author and reader) participants and what they
(we!) want to post and read, not hew to some magic line of "value ==
technical content".

Withdrawal by major supporters (and this isn't happening with AT&T
anyway) won't kill Usenet; it may make it harder for SOME people at
SOME sites to get feeds.  Increased volume won't kill Usenet; it may
make it more difficult to support a full feed at SOME or even MOST
sites and may require site admins to be more selective in carrying
what their Usenet enthusiasts care about.  And to answer yet another
article, four-letter words (or sexually-related messages) won't kill 
Usenet; it may cause a FEW sites where the Mrs. Grundy faction runs
the show to leave Usenet or curtail their participation.

Let a thousand flowers bloom!  Usenet has never been healthier.

Michael C. Berch 
News/mail admin
mcb@tis.llnl.gov / {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb