Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!think!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!unisoft!hoptoad!dasys1!tneff
From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: The death of USENET
Message-ID: <5017@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jun 88 23:33:38 GMT
References: <7475@swan.ulowell.edu> <2645@rpp386.UUCP> <1091@maynard.BSW.COM> <1797@van-bc.UUCP>
Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: Independent Users Guild
Lines: 25

A couple of thoughts:

 1) If AT&T changes from a high volume backbone site to a high volume
    leaf site (this is how I interpret their announcement anyway), then
    what lucky non-AT&T machine gets to be their feed? ;-)  Were the
    administrators of said lucky machine consulted during all these
    "high level meetings"? ;-)

 2) After the horrid comp.women wars it's a pleasure to read so much
    reasoned discussion of a pressing issue.  A lot of people are doing
    the net proud this week, and I mean that.

 3) What concrete numerical evidence is available showing that Usenet is
    too big right now?  Have surveys been done measuring target and actual
    resource consumptions on backbone and end sites?  How do we separate
    what might be panic reactions by admins who "had to cut off everything
    but comp.righteous.iron," from informed decisions made by folks who
    actually knew just how MUCH too big things were, and how much was in 
    fact saved by cutting back?

 4) Never mind ihnp4 -- can USENET survive its own mythology? :-)
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536		MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF		BIX: are you kidding?