Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!vortex!lauren From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Satellite netnews (software, etc) Message-ID: <482@vortex.UUCP> Date: Tue, 25-Dec-84 05:51:24 EST Article-I.D.: vortex.482 Posted: Tue Dec 25 05:51:24 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Dec-84 04:20:38 EST References: <532@vu44.UUCP> Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles Lines: 67 Ultimately (not for awhile) I suspect that there will be separate satellite netnews newsgroups that are parallels to various of the conventional newsgroups. Sites could take the conventional groups by phone, or the satellite groups off air, or both. Obviously, the last choice will result in lots of repetition, but if someone really wants to do it they can. The whole idea of the satellite project is to provide a news conduit that will have higher quality, overall, than the network now (that is, more than 80% of the stuff *would* be worth reading!) and that wouldn't be limited by the low speeds of dialup modems and uneven (in terms of time) delivery of messages to various sites. The project will not be forwarding all netnews materials to the satellite. It has never intended to. Given "parallel" groups where appropriate, you could subscribe to net.misc and get 700 separate messages from people explaining what "foo" means, or get satellite netnews and (presumably) get only one or two. In this respect, the satellite groups would be much like the moderated groups, but with a vastly more efficient and faster means of distribution. I remain strongly convinced that as the current unmoderated net traffic increases, the amount of "fluff" in the net will increase far faster than the real meat, with the result that more and more people stop reading many groups. We all know people who have stopped reading groups (simply because they don't have the time or inclination to wade through garbage) who really *should* still be participating. My hope is that the combination of moderated groups and a broadcast means for distribution will result in a higher quality choice of information for those who want it. The "ordinary" network will still be there of course, by phone, for those who want it. But the unmoderated portion will continue to grow and the garbage quotient will rise along with it. Sooner or later, fewer and fewer people will have time to wade through all the muck looking for the occasional gem. (Obviously this situation isn't equally bad on all groups, but you get the idea). And sooner or later, people are going to stop paying to send many of these messages around the network. In any case, screening is to maintain the quality and usefulness of the information, to make the best use of our available bandwidth, and to remove materials that would be considered objectional or unsuitable in a nationwide broadcast medium. If the stargate project was just to provide a high-tech means for broadcasting the current masses of netnews, without any improvement in overall quality, it wouldn't be worth doing. I'm one of those people who has had to stop reading many groups because of the low level of useful material. I'm hoping that together, we can combine common sense and satellites and generate something that we can all be proud of, and that we can all find useful most of the time, not just occasionally. --Lauren-- P.S. Sorry if I seem to be coming down pretty hard on the quality of unmoderated netnews today. But let's face it, things *are* going downhill. And as more sites join in, the volumes, when unmoderated, are going to be, uh, impressive (depressive?), to say the very least... --LW--