Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site trwrdc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!gatech!seismo!trwrdc!frith
From: frith@trwrdc.UUCP (Lord Frith)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Re: Fear and Loathing on the Clouds
Message-ID: <1095@trwrdc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 10:59:21 EST
Article-I.D.: trwrdc.1095
Posted: Wed Nov  6 10:59:21 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 05:57:39 EST
Reply-To: frith@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith)
Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA.
Lines: 41
Xref: linus net.news:3500 net.news.group:3722


> Fine, if they won't pay any attention to us, why should we subsidize them?
> Do you really want all the backbone sites to say "to hell with it" and stop
> forwarding news?  Bear in mind that there will be few volunteers lining up
> for the privilege of paying exorbitant phone bills for your benefit.

But there might be more willingness if there were many backbone sites.  Cut
down those long-distance calls and you cut the expense enourmously.

>> There are those words again... "we" and "enforced."  May I suggest that the
>> rules of the net be enforced IN SOFTWARE according to a commonly held set
>> of rules?  Voting could be accomplished automatically.  That would make
>> a fun project.
> 
> Actually, it would make a large and difficult project.  That aside, I am
> all in favor of this if there is a fee of, say, $20 per vote, the proceeds
> to go towards the backbone's phone bills.  If you aren't going to help with
> our financial problems, don't expect us to live and die by your votes.

Actually it would be legally infeasible for net users to pay the phone
bills of large corporations since that would make EVERY site in the net
a service organization etc etc...

I don't expect you to live and die by voting.  I don't expect voting to decrease
the net traffic.  I DO expect a voting system to be somewhat fairer and less
prone to the caprice of an administrator than the current methodology.  Nice
topic for research too.

>> No no no no no no!  Slowing down the rate of growth is NOT the same as
>> excersising control over newsgroup creation.  You regulate flow by adapting
>> the network topology to the flow.  Build in more redundancy and coordinate
>> calls between sites more effectivly.  By controlling newsgroup creation you
>> also control newsgroup content.
> 
> Please explain what you mean by "adapting the network topology" and "build
> in more redundancy" (the redundancy in the existing net improves reliability
> at the cost of still higher phone bills!)

Install more sites per backbone and perhaps two or three more "backbones."
Kind of like trunk lines.  Redundancy can be built in by having several
sites feed each site if there are bottlenecks.