Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lasspvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!lasspvax!olson
From: olson@lasspvax.UUCP (Todd Olson)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.news.adm
Subject: Saving the net
Message-ID: <639@lasspvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Nov-85 17:18:22 EST
Article-I.D.: lasspvax.639
Posted: Sat Nov  2 17:18:22 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Nov-85 02:06:55 EST
Reply-To: olson@lasspvax.UUCP (Todd Olson)
Followup-To: net.news.adm
Organization: LASSP, Cornell University
Lines: 94
Keywords: money, fairness
Xref: watmath net.news.group:4228 net.news.adm:406
Summary: 

[]

    I would like to make a suggestion for restructuring the net in such a way
that everyone pays their FAIR SHARE of the PHONE COST.  Let me warn you
first that I do not know how the net currently works as my thesis keeps getting
in the way of studing the matter, hence my solution might be the current
system.  (Please: no flames, I'm merely a concerned citizen trying trying 
to keep a 'public good' going.)  Also if the problem is more the demand
the net is putting on a machine in cpu time spent serving the news then
in money paid to the Phone Company, then my 'solution' isn't.
				|-->-- 1
         news --->---  A --->---|-->-- 2
				|-->-- 3
				|-->-- 4
    The current distribution method, if my inference is correct is that 
after the news has arrived at A, A calls up 1,2,3,4 in turn and passes
the news on to them each in turn.  Probably, at the same time A also 
collects the any new news from 1,2,3,4.  Thus A pays for all of the
communication between it and 1,2,3,4.
                    IN SHORT 
    I suggest this should be turned around.  Machines 1,2,3,4 should each
call A and ask for any new news.
		    IN DETAIL
    Several problems immediately come to mind, one being how do we keep
1,2,3,4 from calling A at the same time and another being how should A get
new news from 1,2,3,4.  Here is what I imagine should happen...
    1) For every pair of machines that exchange news directly, (eg A,1) one 
       is designated the up-stream site (A) and one the down-stream site (1)
    2) At some (more or less) prearranged time A calls 1 and asks for any
       new news that 1 has to pass along.  1 sends the news to A.  The
       connection is then terminated.
    3) Immediately 1 calls A back and asks if A has any news for it.  Now
       A sends news to 1.  The call is terminated.
    4) The news exchange is now done.
		    DISCUSSION
    The main point to note is that if every machine gets every piece of news
then EVERY machine PAYS the SAME in phone bills because each machine pays
only for what it gets, not for what it feeds to others.
    One might object that it this takes TWO phone calls to exchange the news
where one should suffice.  But TWO phone calls is the only way to make
each machine pay for their share of the news.
    The reason for having one site (A) always initiate the exchange is so
that it doesn't get called simultaneously by 1,2,3,4.
    Note that if A decides that it will not deal in some group, say *.mac,
and 1 wants this group, then 1 can still get most of its news from A
and then go elsewhere (possibly long distance) to get *.mac.
    This scheme might make it easier for some of the backbone sites to
off load some of the serving because it would be less costly for other
sites to become servers.
		    PROBLEMS
    1) The main backbone sites will still spend a lot of cpu time 
       communicating with other machines.  They will still need banks of
       phones to handle the traffic.  (However they won't be paying for 
       all that traffic.  Only for what they get, which is the same as
       every one else)
    2) What if in step (3) above, 1 does not call back.  Does A hang, not
       dealing with 2,3,or4?  I suggest some sort of time out mechanism.
    3) This scheme will encourage Fragmentation.  That is it will be possible
       for some site to draw it's news from several sites, for speed
       or cost reasons.  This will complicate book keeping.  Maybe the
       first bit of communication should be, "I want news from you, the
       last thing I saw was ...  Do you have anything more up to date
       than this?"  
    4) Sites that feed news long distance will have higher phone bills.
       (I suppose we could put up with only local calls and long transit
       times if the net is dense enough in real space. (-:)  Maybe then
       we could get the biologist to study it for us to help us keep it 
       alive (-:))
    5) Suppose one site generates a lot of 'junk'.  They never pay for
       what they generate, but everone else pays to get it.  Well, I
       don't see a way around this.  All I can say is that at least it
       is better that each site pay for receiving junk mail rather than
       one backbone site (that merely transmits the junk) paying for
       everyone to get the junk.

    I'm sure that there are other technical problems.
    Will this distribute costs more equitably?
    What do the rest of you think?  
    Is there anyone up to creating this new beast?  (Unfortunately(?), I have
    a physics thesis to produce, otherwise I'm just crazy enough to try create
    this on my own, for personal amusment and education.)

                         SUMMARY
    Structure the net so that people pay for what they get rather than what
they give.


-- 
Todd Olson

ARPA: olson@lasspvax  -- or --  olson%lasspvax.tn.cornell.edu@cu-arpa
UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra,...}!cornell!lasspvax!olson
US Mail: Dept Physics, Clark Hall, Cornell University,
	 Ithaca, New York 14853-2501