From: jim@tadusa.uucp (Jim Thompson)
Subject: Re: Austin Free-Net?
Originator: riddle@aahsa.tic.com
X-Submissions: eff-austin@tic.com
Organization: none
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:42:51 GMT

> From: uunet!nextover.pe.utexas.edu!petrilli (Chris Petrilli)
> In article <1992Sep29.225349.27183@tic.com> jsq@tic.com (John Quarterman)  
> writes:
> > In article <1992Sep29.133024.17415@tic.com>  
> petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes:
> > >>> Dell is connected via T1, not 56k.  MCC also has much bandwidth.
> > >>> Alternet has a 256k circuit that is as good as 'on the Internet'.
> > 
> > An odd way to put it.  AlterNet has direct IP connectivity, and thus
> > is on the Internet by definition, as is PSINet.  Both have points of
> > presence in Austin.
> 
> I didn't say that, I quoted that :-)

I said it.  I was attempting to say nicely that Alternet is part of CIX, and
not part of the NSF portion of the Internet.  It came out badly.

> I was under the impression, from your book, that THEnet ran DECnet  
> protocols, thereby making it not part of the "real" Internet (ie NSFnet)

There, see, you just did what I did.  But you are wrong.  THEnet is a NSF 
regional network, and thus 'part' of the NSF portion of the Internet.  CIX
is part of the Internet, but not part of the NSF portion.  The real Internet
is the collective whole.

> > There are quite a few models for host-oriented access, including
> > the World in Boston, Portal and the WELL in the SF area, and ECHO in NYC.
> > Some of these, such as the World, are basically UNIX systems with plain
> > old shells.
> 
> Then those are options, but not hte only.
> 
> > The Little Garden network in the SF Bay Area is one way of doing low cost
> > IP connectivity to end user sites: 56Kbps IP links point to point between
> > participating companies.


> How many people want/need 56K IP links to their house?  let's be real and  
> not get stuck in the "most bang" without regard to the purpose.  Do you  
> purchase a Lamborghini Diablo to get groceries?  No, it isn't the  
> appropriate vehical for the job.

I want 56k to my house.  I've had 56k IP to a previous house.  Know what?  It
quickly became 'not enough', especially when my wife was also trying to use the
link.  :-)/2.

> > You can put KA9Q on a DOS machine and have SLIP by dialup in your house.
> 
> Sure, but what about people who don't have V.32 modems?  Let's be  
> realistic, anything less than that is worthless for SLIP.  What about the  
> large number of people that can't afford V.32, and are stuck with 2400 for  
> now... are we to alienate them because we're too busy with building a  
> glorious design in our ivory tower that crushes the populous.  If there are  
> no people to use the network (or not enough) then it is of no value.

Compressed-header SLIP, with the right MTU *is* usable at 2400 baud.
We've got several field sales people who use SLIP connections @ 2400
baud (no V.42/MNP compression, either) to stay connected, exchange
e-mail, etc.

In fact, for the style of computing you deem necessary to support the
low-budget user (tty sessions), SLIP is really no slower than a dial-in
line at the same speed.  I doubt that a TCP/IP stack exists for a Commadore 
VIC-20, however.

> To munge what Sun once said:
> 
> 	The People are the Network.
> 
> Without them, no matter how much technology you throw at it, it still has  
> no value beyound it's worth as a technological exercise.

Right, I agree, and I suspect that many others do as well, even if you seem
to have just discounted NASA out of existence.  :-)

> > Why does there have to be only one solution?
> 
> I propose multiple solutions.  Options for all, exclusion for none.

Ok, say we provide telnet access to some host, so the cpu-challenged
have somewhere to login and read news/mail/...  Can we please still
require that the end-user 'terminal' be able to support some IP stack,
and an over-the-wire encoding of IP (e.g. SLIP or PPP)?  You won't
believe how much simpler this makes the administration.

I propose one, (to use a bad word) "open" solution.  You can connect to
the network, use IP (over SLIP or PPP) to do so.  Once there, connect
to any service you like.  If there are free services (a computer where
you want to read your mail by logging in and running 'elm') you want to
use, fine.  The support of your could-be-one-off terminal needs can be
negotiated between you and the administration of that machine.  If
you're a sophisticated user, with sophisticated (costly?) equiptment
(You've got your own SGI at home), then you also have access to the
same network, and the same set of services.  If you want to use some
for-pay service ("The Lydia Live collection of sound bytes"), this is
also permitted.  Choice.

To do otherwise, and erect a large single-node BBS system is to:

a) not expand the art,
b) not lead the way,
c) not educate,

in other words, limit your audience to those who will endure
archaic models of computing and communication, thus limiting the
growth of the individuals who use your system.  Do we really need to
futher justfy the DOS/MAC/...-users complain that Unix is cryptic?

> I may sound terribly like a Socialist, and I am in this respect.

There is nothing wrong with socialism that can't be matched by a 'bug'
in any other form of social order.
  
> Information is power, I refuse to be the one to hold the power over a  
> populous based on the notion of what I personally think makes someone  
> worthy of said knowledge (ie, the checkbook to spend money).

You sound as though you want to make access to information a right, instead
of the privilege that it is.  In our society, many things are unequitable.
You seem to be proposing that we must provide access via any method imaginable.
By doing so, you limit the growth of the networked society.  I would like to
understand who these denizen hordes of computer users who have $200 computers
*and* want access to Usenet are.

> Perhaps I'm  
> an ideological person, but I want EVERYONE to be able to access this system  
> (even if they don't hav a computer, ie the public terminal lab idea), not  
> just the elite few.

We know how to solve the public terminal lab case, in fact, we know how
to solve almost any individual case.  I still think the point is
connecting people, not providing access.  Its a austin freeNET, not
austin freeBBS.  If you would like to erect austin freeBBS, or austin
freeUNIX, or whatever you would like to call it, that is fine.  Its
probably also fine if you connect Austin FreeBBS to Austin FreeNet.
There may well be many, many connection points, some free, some not,
some well run, some run in anarchy, each with its own unique 'flavor'.
But the real feature is the network, the connection, and this is what
we must build.

Jim



Newsgroups: austin.eff