Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 11:20:03 +0100
From: Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond <ocl@cc.imperial.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: No Fun Anymore!
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 629, Message 1 of 6

On Thu, 6 Aug 92 18:42:15 CDT, wpd@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer)
provides comments regarding my initial article, posted a while ago:

[Note: heavily edited message to save space - ocl]

> I am sorry, but I dont see how these statements (even in their
> entirity) constitute a rejection of science.  If anything they

I was perhaps a bit rough in using the term "rejection". Perhaps I
should word this as a "feeling of unease towards the releasing into
the public of inventions which are barely understood by the average
user, and could thus be mis-used, whether intentionally or
non-intentionally". This includes most examples of items of
technological advance.

> Usenet's technology is based upon trust and a general (alleged)
> respect and maturity between users.  Like Ham radio, Usenet had a
> level 'a cut above' the average local BBS or CB radio channel. The
> primary users were university students and corporations within the
> general field of technology.

I entirely agree with you. Unfortunately, the world of universities,
research establishments, corporations in the general field of
technology, is by nature out of touch with the rest of the world,
simply because of its advance in technology, and its higher-than-
average maturity of human resources. Having a network based upon trust
and a general respect and maturity between users is only possible in
such a closed, and I fear to say, utopic environment.  It's all about
money outside of those circles (I'll come back to that later), and
maturity is simply inexistent in a lot of people's minds.

[stuff deleted - ocl]

> However, like the analogy of Ham radio and CB, the increasing size and
> ease of entry, WITHOUT substantial changes to the workings of a
> network which was never designed to handle such traffic, does present
> a problem.

Agreed, agreed.

> In Ham radio, one must pass tests of technical competency, and learn a
> binary code (Morse) to enter the airwaves as a legit Ham.  This

I am not entirely sure if that is true for all countries in the world.

[stuff deleted - ocl]

> I have no problem with requiring SOME minimal level of competence and
> intelligence when piloting a global system of communication like
> Usenet.  There are thousands of local BBS's, where one can log-in and
> be as un-intelligent and non-qualified as one wants.  We don't give
> drivers licenses to every kid who rides a bicycle.

I don't think that this example is valid. Driving can both endanger
your life, but most of all it also endangers other people's lives as
well. With such matters, a license is REQUIRED. Like you, I deplore
the fact that no minimal level of competence is required for piloting
a system like Usenet. Like you, I would love to have something done
about it. However the question is "What can we do about it ?" A system
of license (like ham radio) is completely unacceptable IMHO. So what ?
See later in my message ...

[ stuff deleted - ocl ]

> My point (and I believe Pat's) exactly.  Cb'ers live in smaller arenas
> and can, therefore, play their silly games without too much real
> degradation of areas beyond.  Usenet (like Ham radio) is
> international, and therefore has much greater impact on our world.  As
> the uninitiated join our ranks, without respect for the traditions and
> conventions of the network, the law of CB (talk loud, listen little
> and pay no attention to the feelings/opinions/rights of others) is
> becomming more and more the rule.

While I agree with you, I have this inner fear that traditions are the
weakest form of rules, whether scientifically, culturally, or legally.
Traditions are being lost around the world. The problem with
traditions is that they are not written, and hence can disappear if
one doesn't keep them alive. If you want order, then you need written
laws, and you need somebody to enforce them -- I cannot see that
happening on Usenet, although I'd be glad to, to a certain extent.

> Usenet is operated primarily through the courtesy of institutions of
> learning, the military and major corporations.  Most traffic is
> handled on a big "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' basis.

You'll have to forgive me for re-uttering that comment, but I think
that this is a very utopic idea. While this has gone-on for some time
due to the kindness and dedication of the people involved in Usenet,
any financial person would be astonished by that system.

> Most of the 'expense' is not borne by the average user, but by the
> afore-mentioned orginizations.  If the users had to pay the frieght
> for all the connections and long-distance lines, I dare say (s)he
> would be less frivolous with the flames and such.  Usenet is also
> propagated via hobbiest UNIX enthusiasts, who bear the brunt of most
> local connections.  Much of this is invisible to the 'newbie' user who
> merely has to press a few keys and 'magically' their message is
> propagated worldwide for the price of a local phone call.

Well here we go! To keep enthusiasts and major corporations from pulling
the plug, why not charge end-users towards the cost of communication,
or perhaps only a percentage of it? I am thinking about a very cheap
fee, say $0.05 per page; perhaps less. This would solve traffic issues
by keeping down Mbytes on say, alt.sex.pictures which account for
the majority of traffic on Usenet. This would deter users from
quoting the entire message they are replying to and saying "yes" at the
end. This would keep down the number of cross-postings to multiple
groups. 

In short, this would separate the seeds from the haystack.  Without
wanting to sound posh, I think that Usenet is experiencing the same
process as the rest of the world, that is, democratisation. What used
to be enjoyed by an elite, is now available to everybody. It's the
same phenomenon as people making money overnight, joining the circles
of high flyers, moving up into society. While I guess that for most
people (that is quantity-wise) this democratisation is a good thing,
for the elite that was there before, it undeniably means some form of
lowering in standard, perhaps even some sort of inconvenience. 

Take an example: airline prices are getting so cheap that most
Europeans can afford now go on holiday, say, to Egypt, while in the
past this was reserved for the privileged few. Package tours offer the
pyramids, the nile, etc. etc. to more and more people, at a cheaper
and cheaper price.  The result is that monuments such as the pyramids,
which used to be okay when visited by few people, are now suffering
from this influx of tourists. Take any other example, say Greece,
where the Greek monuments are getting attacked by car exhaust fumes,
like in Italy where monuments in Rome suffer a same fate. This
increase in exhaust release is no doubt cause by the fact that more
people can now afford a car than at any other time in the past. The
only way all of these problems are going to be solves will be to
charge them; tax, entrance fee, etc.  Usenet, the monument of computer
telecommunications appears to enter that phase. It's unfortunate.

> Many sites have already pulled the plug on alt.* groups, because of
> space limitations and because many are mere jokes.  Still other sites
> have gone further and eliminated talk.* and even rec.* groups due too
> the increase in the noise and the seemingly uncontrolled proliferation
> of newsgroups dedicated to ever narrowing and esoteric interests.

Elimination of groups is a sad thing to do, especially when it is
undertaken in such broad sense. While some groups in alt.*, talk.*,
rec.* may be pure noise. Others aren't. Generalisation is a danger in
itself as lethal as stereotyping.

> It is incorrect to assume that there is a bottomless pit for this
> traffic.  As more 'backbone' sites refuse the periferal groups, the
> smaller sites 'below' them also lose the feed.  All it would take is
> for AT&T, Motorola, the military sites, and a few key Universities, to
> clamp down on the costs of this network, and we would see a lot of
> downstream sites dry up real quick.  I sincerely hope this does not
> happen, but dont believe for a minute that it *can't* happen.

Forgive my radical attitude here, but clamping down on costs in such a
way (ie: by cutting off services) is a stupid thing to do. Charging
sounds better, although I'd hope that this would still mean affordable
access. Organisations such as the ones that you mention don't only
support Usenet 'for fun', but it has to be said, also as a means of
publicity. Otherwise, can you explain to me why a computer like
cis.ohio-state.edu has one of the highest Usenet traffic in the world?

> Agreed, the technology won't disappear, but the 'free lunch' illusion
> of Usenet is not carved in stone (except, perhaps the stone heads of
> SOME users :->).

One usually takes advantage, or should I say, abuses a free lunch;
this is human nature. One comes back to reality with a cheap lunch,
without suffering, and maybe (who knows) benefitting from better
quality due to less quantity having to be produced. One starves if a
free lunch is stopped abruptly without replacement.


>> One thing before I go home: The decade of the eighties was the decade
>> of computers for all. The decade of the nineties will see the same
>> jump in technology, but this time with telecommunications.

> True, but be prepared to pay the bill for the technology :-(.

Technology is expensive. A "high bill" slows commercial implementation
of technology. A "subsidised, affordable bill" promotes technology.
"No bill" is a trip into utopia.


Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, Digital Comms. Section, Elec. Eng. Department
 Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London SW7 2BT, UK
     Internet/Bitnet: <ocl@cc.ic.ac.uk> - Janet: <ocl@uk.ac.ic.cc>