Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!alberta!access!edm!steve From: steve@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Cut traffic? (was: Re: The death of USENET) Message-ID: <3169@edm.UUCP> Date: 22 Jun 88 09:45:51 GMT References:Organization: Unexsys Systems, Edmonton,AB. Lines: 28 From article , by webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber): > In article <10382@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>, smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes: >> In article <5017@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP writes: >> > 1) If AT&T changes from a high volume backbone site to a high volume >> > leaf site (this is how I interpret their announcement anyway), then >> > what lucky non-AT&T machine gets to be their feed? ;-) Were the ... > Now those two sites are going to > have to talk to each other directly (which was obviously more expensive > for them than talking to ihnp4 or they wouldn't have used the ihnp4 connection > in the first place). Net effect -- non-att mail will now be more expensive > for the net as a whole and most likely for sites that neighbor att as well. It's not necessarily cheaper to go thru att than direct -- at least, not in phone charges. However, it often IS cheaper to do it in terms of administration. (why get a direct connection when ihnp4 has all the connectivity??). There was a time when the fastest way to get a message from Edmonton to Calgary (about 180mi) was to bounce it thru Michigan and Vancouver (twice across the continent)!! Needless to say: a direct call to Calgary would have been cheapest, but the way things were set up, it wasn't the fastest. -- ------------- Stephen Samuel Disclaimer: You betcha! {ihnp4,ubc-vision,mnetor,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve BITNET: USERZXCV@UOFAMTS