Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mcdchg!ddsw1!karl From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: A Thought Experiment about News.Groups Summary: Rebuttal Message-ID: <3549@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Date: 31 May 89 13:27:25 GMT References: <371@odi.ODI.COM> <3400@looking.on.ca> Reply-To: karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL Lines: 111 In article <3400@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >These suggestions are worthwhile, but in fact it's not that >different today. Anybody can start a new group with any name on >their own site. They can feed it to those that want it. Those that >don't want it don't have to take it. Right on. So what's terrible about this? >So a change in structure wouldn't help. We have never gone to that >sort of structure because of the camp that solidly believes in a concept >called "namespace control." They believe (with some merit, though not >as much as they sometimes expound) that the namespace of groups should >be kept simple and controlled to avoid more net chaos. ....And to keep the net accessible to those who have machines that will not work when you go beyond some arbitrary number of groups (512, for example). Of course, some people would just disenfranchise those folks, rather than cut them a little slack. So it goes. >So some folks said, "USENET is really broadcast, let's transmit it by >satellite." So they did. To pay for the transmission, however, it was >clear that all the people who benefited from this clear improvement >in efficiency should share the cost. So the "Stargate" folks said that >they would have to control re-feeding of what people got from the >downlink, so that each downlink recipient would share the cost evenly. You mean so they could continue to perpetuate the monopoly they held, and reap the revenue from same. >Otherwise they would have had to charge a fortune for one downlink >and expect the single site to feed everybody and charge them. If they >charged a moderate price for a downlink that reflected everybody sharing >the cost, then 100 sites would get together, get one downlink and not pay >their share. Would they? If the service was TRULY broadcast at a reasonable price, it wouldn't pay to "bypass". Remember, the telephone costs money to use, and companies and individuals are sensitive to price. If 100 sites got a feed from a downlinked machine, it would be due to the telephone costs being lower than the cost of using the downlink, no? And if that is the case, then the downlink method of transmission is _clearly_ the loser; it's more expensive, and by definition (monetary) less efficient. >The result? People objecting to any sort of scheme like this started >objecting vehemently, and putting copyrights on their messages forbidding >any controlled distribution scheme that might allow the sharing of costs. No, they objected to controlled distribution that _enforced_ sharing of the costs, which is proper given the type of network we have here. Usenet is a cooperative experience. UUNET, for example, charges for their feeds, but you are free to charge someone else for their feed (once you have it) if you want. >They thought they were fighting for free flow of information. Instead >they hurt the project, and just made everybody pay a lot more for their >datacom. The only benefit was to the phone company. Nope, again. The benefit was to the phone company, and not to "Stargate", but that was solely because Stargate was priced unreasonably. This is a highly competitive market (newsfeeds); you have many sources, and a choice that you make according to how you perceive your monetary and other considerations. That is what a competitive, free, open market is about. >Today satellite technology is much cheaper, and a site in Vancouver is >feeding usenet into a data channel with no restrictions just to help >sell satellite decoder boards. As well, the internet now carries much >of the inter-city usenet traffic, eliminating the wasteful links. Actually, I worked in that industry, and I can't see how satellite technology is any cheaper to use now than it was two or so years back. Please, enlighten the net! What I do see is a company that is making enough money (hopefully) selling decoder boards that they can afford to GIVE away the programming. I wonder if the people who complained about Stargate (and put those "silly" restrictions on their postings) perhaps, just perhaps, saw some firm out there making (what would be) a killing compared to costs, and didn't like it, and actively made it impossible or very difficult for that group to succeed. In other words, they exercised their right to "go elsewhere" and keep their programming (their postings) from being exploited by a third party for profit. What's wrong with that? Usenet feeds ARE a free market, you know. UUNET seems to be doing ok -- even though it's not the cheapest way to get the news for some people. For others, the service, connectivity, and ease of use make it the obvious choice. Leave the free market alone in Usenet feeds; it's working just fine. We have an active example of what happens to those who try to exploit the feed process for their own enrichment -- the net reacts, and the would-be exploiter loses. >But the reason I tell this story is to remind people that on usenet, >it seems impossible to do anything constructive if it might involve >any level of control. People on usenet seem to completely >misunderstand anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of government and >(usually) law. It is not the absence of order, systems and standards. No, people on Usenet tend to violently disagree with someone else misappropriating their work for profit, just like they do in any other part of the business (and recreational) world. I believe you misunderstand the problems that Stargate faced. Note that Stargate isn't around anymore, while the traditional methods of transmission, and UUNET (which can be darn expensive if you use it a lot!) both are. I wonder why....... -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"