From: muh@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Yury M. Mukharsky)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: CIS on the internet? Why not?
Date: 27 Sep 1992 04:44:51 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu

In article <1a37oqINNkjs@rodan.UU.NET> avg@rodan.UU.NET (Vadim Antonov) writes:

Listen, have you forget how this discussion started? Somebody asked about
BITNET connection to xSU. I replied that it is exist and it is free,
which is important thing, in time when there is no money for expensive
Relcom connection. You exploded and started mix SUERAN with shit (trying
add some of me to this mix). I have nothing against Relcom, but for the
second time you complaining about me complaining about high prices. It
looks like your only purpose is to give people opinion that Relcom is the
only choice. It is not.

>In article <1a2qk7INNpna@agate.berkeley.edu> muh@physics1 (Yury M. Mukharsky) writes:
>
>EARN is not a couple of machines on the end of a loooong line.

What was Relcom 2 years ago? 486 on the end of loong line, at least it is
what I was told by Relcom people that time.

>
>Huh? How do you think how much it would cost to call to US from
>Moscow (if you'll get through).

You asked me about free service, you got it. It actually will be cheaper
to call from Moscow, but not so much cheaper (for a small Institute or
individual), as to give up Relcom. And now when free mail is there it's
not worth doing at all.

>>We are not speaking about general public, are we? We (well, at least I)
>>are speaking about research and educational institutions. (That's what
>>BITNET serves, isnot it?).

BTW, year ago it was hard for general public to get access to Relcom.
There were in principle individual accounts for reasonable pay, but
you must be a good friend of Relcom to get it (again that is what I
was told by Relcom people.)

>about high costs -- it's just laughable; just compare the cost
>of networking vital for their scientific exchange to their
>budgets; most of them spend more on electricity, leave alone
>equipment. It's mostly a matter of internal bureaucracy and

If you think it should be other way round: more for e-mail than for equipment,
than you have strange views on priorities of research institutions.
Moreover most of them have NO money for elecrtricity. What about small
institutions?

>
>Are you kidding? Aren't the cost of hardware and communications the
>same in US and ex-SU (internal communications are cheaper in ex-SU,
>though)? What wages have in common with the production costs? If

You really seems to have vague views on economics. (So do I :) ). One
workstation here costs much less than year salary of system administrator.
(I would guess ratio is 3, including benefits)
If you set up dedicated node here, won't main part of cost will be system
administrator salary? Communications in xSU were much cheaper than in
US, they still are. Call from here to Moscow costs ~2$/min, other way:
about 40c. Difference was bigger before (it was about 25c/min year ago
for regular call and 50c for fax).

>
>$500 is the price for foreighn companies -- somehow higher than

From what side you define foreighn? If from Russian, than I worked for
foreighn company for 9 years, have no slightest idea about that. We
payed 12000R/year, which was $500 by black market conversion rate.
(I'll better not mention what will it be if converted by official rate).

>internal prices. USENET and internal e-mail weren't included in
>those 4Mb; now tell me how are you going to write 4Mb letters?

It's about reasonable low limit for small research Institute. If you
try to avoid to many correcturs of joint papers, send back and forth.

Yury