Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:17:46 +0000 From: "Riley J. McIntire" <rjmcintire@iceland-c.it.earthlink.net> To: freebsd-isp@freeBSD.org Subject: Re: News... Message-ID: <199704181636.JAA23603@charmed.wilshire.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 21:50:59 -0700 (PDT) > From: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com> > To: freebsd-isp@freeBSD.org > Subject: Re: News... > Organization: Memra Software Inc. - Internet consulting > On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, Sysadmin wrote: > > > And who is this "we" who will "manage" Usenet? > > Pretty much the same people that manage it now. USENET is not utter chaos > but is actually quite organized by many volunteers. Even the alt.* > hierarchy is organized, just using different policies than the main > hierarchies. > > > I don't have any problem with "cancelmoose" type enforcment of *limited* > > content-neutral rules generally accepted by Usenet's user-owners. But I > > do with anyone who thinks they have the right to prevent or inhibit its > > use by others, or to modify it simply because that would make it easier > > to carry. But I'm starting to get the impression that this thread's real > > intent is to eliminate newsgroups which are unwanted and at the same > > time not have to provide them to those getting newsfeeds, and prevent > > others from carrying them as well, lest the customers vote with their > > feet and go to the other providers. Fsck that idea. You don't want the > > group, don't carry it, but if others do, don't grouse about their > > choice. > > I was going to answer this but on second thought, you seem to firmly > believe that the sound of black helicopters is getting near so I think > I'll pass. > I'll take a shot at it. It's not so much denying newsfeed to those who want it , but misuse and abuse of the mechanism used to distribute it. This mechanism, nntp, is costing ISPs in time, money and bandwidth because the alt groups are *pushing* large binaries through servers for a minority(???) of users. In a way, it is broadcast--not to the user, but to the ISP. The content providers are using the ISPs disk space and bandwidth for their own products. Use of a broadcast media should be by subscription--for instance the push content on the Web--one subscribes to it. But the point is, if one doesn't subscribe, it doesn't bog down an ISP's servers--it stays on the publishers (or originators) servers. Keeps the responsibility for content where it should be, too. At the source. Now, one does subscribe to newsgroups, but the point is the overhead of transmission and administration is on the ISP, not the content provider. And the gun is at the ISP's head: Subscribe (or provide) these groups, or become liable for content and lose customers because you don't carry the groups they want. In a sense, this is an issue of not only rational use of available resources, but also one of placing responsibility on the content provider at the source. So, change how large binaries are distributed. Use web push tecnology. Use ftp. Use news for what it was intended: text messages and discussion. And incidently put the onus of content responsibility at the source. Damn! Didn't expect to write that much! Cheers, Riley
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704181636.JAA23603>