From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Sad to say...
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 08:42:51 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

ST21519@VM.CC.LATECH.EDU writes:

> >who are in positions of authority are the ones who have the bucks.  If they
> >don't want something to be transmitted, they don't have to allow it.  The
> >reason they got into co-ordinator positions in the first place is because th
>
> Wrong!  The Backbone hubs were created in those cities where there were enoug
> nodes to chip in and cover expenses - ask John Souvestre as he is local to yo
> This was what I always thought (the bucks part), but I learned otherwise from
> those who actually are involved.  Tony Davis whom you may know of, is a wealt
> of info regarding why things are why they are.

Read what I posted.  I was talking about *coordinators*.  I know how Souvestre
got to where he is, because I was in Net 396 as the whole thing evolved.  NECs
got their positions because, like John, they had the bigger systems and faster
modems.  That's how John became a backbone hub.  He assumed a national role,
then someone else in the net assumed the local hub role.

My point is that these guys get these jobs because they can put out the time
and money to run the systems that can handle the volume.  Of course, regional
and zone echomail coordinators are normally net coordinators before they get
the higher jobs.  And they got the jobs because they had more bucks than
others.

The guys who run the three zone backbone hubs are different birds altogether,
since they're out of the politics of the *EC structure.  They still are able to
affect changes on the net, since if one of the backbone hubs starts carrying an
off-backbone echo, it's de facto on one-third to one-half of the continent
without being approved by any of the politicians.

>
> I can only speculate of your charge they don't have to allow something to be
> transmitted as the conversation did drift as to why the CUNT and other variou
> related echos were dropped from the Backbone.  This was due to legal reasons
> Tony hired a lawyer who said they would win the war, but lose their machines
> the meantime.  Those involved decided it too risky and those echos happily mo
> on those persons systems who do not worry about someone knocking and taking
> their machine.
>

You'd be better off not speculating, since I wasn't making any 'charges.'  I
was pointing out that in Fidonet, a moderator of an echo has to get permission
from two RECs to get it on the backbone.  If two politicians don't approve of
an echo, it doesn't happen.  This is in stark contrast to the Usenet, where
someone can issue a Call-For-Discussion/Call-For-Votes on creating a new
newsgroup, and the readership of the net then decides what gets carried.  This
doesn't mean that the system is necessarily bad in Fidonet, it's just not very
responsive to the users.  Of course, the sysops are the ones footing the bill,
so whether or not it *should* be responsive to users is another story.





>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<