Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 Brag 10-8-84; site bragvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!bragvax!david From: david@bragvax.UUCP (David DiGiacomo) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: satellite netnews costs (what I should have said) Message-ID: <275@bragvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 14-Dec-84 20:55:44 EST Article-I.D.: bragvax.275 Posted: Fri Dec 14 20:55:44 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 17-Dec-84 03:12:20 EST References: <466@vortex.UUCP> Organization: Brag Systems Inc., San Mateo, CA Lines: 55 Let me try to clarify my position... I am excited about broadcast news. I got a real thrill from tweaking the vertical hold on my TV set and watching the bits flash by in the blanking. (Try it!) If I didn't care, I wouldn't have gotten upset when Lauren started talking about $650 decoders and encryption and monthly fees. Who are the real customers for satellite news? How many commercial news sites will even be able to get a cable TV hookup, or justify it to management? (Let them buy earth stations? Ha.) Cable TV hookups are universally found in homes, so it seems that satellite news will primarily benefit those with home Unix systems (PCs in general?). I don't think I would pay $650 to read the news at home. (I suppose a hybrid approach is possible where an employee who lives within free-call distance gets an extra phone line and installs the news decoder -- it's still a lot easier to get the company to pay for phone calls to a news feed.) My conclusion is that a truly successful broadcast news system will have to be a low-cost, shoe-string, hacker type project. Now I'd like to reply to some points in Lauren's counter-flame (article <466@vortex.UUCP>): >As for costs, we're not talking about hacked-together toys here. >We're talking about commercial equipment made by large >firms who aren't in business for their health. I think we should talk about hacked-together toys; isn't that what Usenet was built on ? :-) Seriously, why should Usenet hardware be different from Usenet software: lovingly crafted by amateurs, and distributed without thought of profit ? >Once again, we are NOT talking toys here, we are talking national >broadcasting over the largest non-sports basic cable service in >the world -- WTBS. OK, you need non-toy equipment at the broadcast end, but nothing my Brand-X decoder does is going to cause WTBS to break FCC rules. That's the miracle of broadcasting. >HOWEVER, if the network community doesn't like the way the project is >going, I will give the satellite people a call, tell them to pull the >plug on stargate, and then I'll even have more time to work on projects >that can help me pay this month's rent. That's an ugly threat, Lauren. We have to play by your rules or you'll take your marbles and go home. How about option #3: if the network community doesn't like the way the project is going, you will find out why and modify the project! >What say you, oh entities of the net? Please post to this group. Better yet, just mail in your $650. -- David DiGiacomo, BRAG Systems Inc., San Mateo CA (415) 342-3963 (...decvax!ucbvax!hplabs!bragvax!david)