From: petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu (Chris Petrilli)
Newsgroups: austin.public-net
Subject: Re: Various Responses
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:22:24 GMT
Reply-To: petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu
Distribution: austin

In article <86336@ut-emx.uucp> ashcraft@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jay Ashcraft)  
writes:
> Well personally, as one of the privileged few, I think SLIP, Ethernet,
> or a fiber link would be a necessity.  Now, I am running on a DOS 386
> box with a Worldport modem using winqvt in windows over DOS 5.  SLIP,
> once configured is wonderful.  I can open separate sessions in
> windows, cut and paste, read newsgroups in a window, mail in another,
> be working in Word and if a message comes in, I'm notified and asked
> if I want to read it, NeXT and Macs are even better with SLIP.  The
> downside is file transfers with all the overhead is awful.  Jerky
> sometimes depending on the other end.  But I think SLIP would be a
> great idea.

The point being "priveleged few" and though I think the number of people  
capable of supporting SLIP is increasing, I think there are other issues that  
have been totally ignored:

	* Security (it's easy to forge packet IDs on a SLIP link)
	* Resources (it ain't easy to support all the people trying to do
	  stuff over a SLIP link)
	* "Resellability" ... ie, some providers don't like you "reselling"
	   their services, ie you can't charge, and they probably wouldn't
	   much care for you giving it away either.
	* Misc administration issues (these are numerous)
 
> Point being that it is something that would attract folks to such a 
> Public System.  Interconnectivity is the issue.  Also, that many folks
> have systems now in there homes that can do SLIP now and want it as access
> to the internet. It also could be a way to allow a start of interconnecting
> other machines here in town.

Want and need, an eternal juxtaposition of fantasy vs. reality.  I have no  
problem providing service to people's wants, but if they want it for free,  
they're definately living in a fantasy world.  The phone system isn't free,  
neither are roads (witness my $50 registration fee to support bridges, etc).  
Expecting that something that costs substantially more to maintain/per person  
should be free is unrealistic. The costs I posted a while back (ranging from  
free - $100/month for various levels) are just estimates, and are still in  
some cases 5x lower than other places providing similar services.  I don't  
know that we can do it for that little.

> UT Network operations has successfully put a system which has, I 
> believe, about 200 possible SLIP connections or XRemote connections. 
> I can't imagine any using anything less than SLIP.  Now Chris P. I believe  
has 
> said that a SUN 380 can only support about nine SLIP connections 
> before it crawls.  At this point we don't even have a SUN.  This is  
possibly
> not the current reality. It should though be part of the near term design.

I've said a lot of things, some of which seem to go zooming right into the  
bit bucket.  UT has money, lots of it, and we don't. They are using a Cisco  
box to provide these, and trust me, it WON'T support 200 connections at the  
same time.  If you ever look at Telesys (the machines), it has 2-10 SLIP/X  
connections,  the rest are simple text sessions.  That's an easy load to  
carry. 200 SLIP lines is not. (Not to mention that's an entire C-network to  
manage).

> The other reality is to provide the masses with an easy interface and I
> believe that APN MUST be connected to the MATRIX to be of any value. 
> If this only means having a link via gopher to plug in from home.  A
> minimum beginning to Connect*Austin. We must be able to telnet into APN.

The goals are to "connect people," in whatever means necessary. Yes, Internet  
has enormous value, but to propose that without it, the project has no value  
is to 1) overestimate Internet 2) underestimate the quality of people in  
Austin.  I have found that some of the more interesting people I've talked to  
are not on Internet, and I've also found that some of the largest wastes in  
the world are on Internet.

As for Gopher? it's a neat toy, but it's still nothing more than that at  
these stages. Sure you can make it do a lot of stuff, but then I can make a  
3270 IBM terminal emulate a DEC VT100, but the point is... use the  
appropriate tool for the appropriate problem. Gopher fits a few, but it  
doesn't fit everything. WAIS fits others better, and WWW fits many.

> Also, least we forget the metro fiber ring which is the longer term
> goal of the organization.  JonQ and Smoot's Tic.com is plenty fast
> via the internet so I can't help but think that some hybrid between
> UT Network operations access and tic.com's speed would work for starters.
> There will of course be the Public sites, and lesser needs for others whom
> could care less for a GUI faster SLIP connection.  Not I!  

Ah yes, but WHO is going to pay?  I hate to be a pessimist, but the finest  
plans layed are not if they aren't realistic. Generalization that because  
"you" (proverbial) need SLIp that therefore my grandmother needs SLIP is the  
reason that things are so bad right now.  If everyone didn't have a 386/486,  
do you think Microsoft would write such horridly obese software?  You can't  
convince me that Windows REALLY needs all that space to do with a Mac could  
do in 128K on a 400K disk? I know this is somewhat invalid, but the point is  
made.  It's just the point that people THINk they need more than they do  
because they rarely try to USE what they have.

> Bob wrote:
> 
> : (1) A shell account on a UNIX machine that you dial up.
> 
> 	Absolutely an option from the get go possibly after
> 	a validation tier? If we have folks willing to timely verify?

Have we got a verification/authorization plan first?

> : (2) A menu on a UNIX machine that you dial up.
>  
> 	As an option and beginning start up screen.	
> 	The WELL has this sort of thing.

So does Compu$erve and a couple others.  It works well for the complete  
novice, witness the proliferation of FreeNets.

> Well, George also had something to say about this, I'm sure this is
> possible but I wouldn't want to end up with a mess like the Austin
> Cable Commission or or Austin Music Commission where they have for 10
> years been trying to get an Austin Music Channel or even another
> access channel. Or the eight year KOOP/KTSB battle for a new public
> radio station.  These type of things are impossible to get anything
> done.  Did you know that the City Commissions have spent three times
> the amount on consulting than it would have cost to build a light
> rail.  Maybe Clinton/Gore will be in favor of such a thing dispite a
> 300+ trillion deficit this year:) Donations are acceptable Now, maybe
> we can be a taxing entity later.:)

It ain't gonna happen, not any time soon. NREN addresses a small part of the  
issue, but I don't think you're going to convince tax payers to approve yet  
another taxing entity when over half hte people still don't have computers,  
and half of the rest haven't a clue as to what SLIP/Internet/PPP is.   
Taxation isn't the solution to most problems, and especially this one.

> YES I guess internally we could have an internal wallop/talk solicitation
> drive, though distrurbing or a Prodigy type thing ala ascci, similar to
> the Monochrome BBS out of the UK. Wherein you get a split screen info
> thing every time you change space in a menu. Always possible four times 
> a year for a week but I don't know how feasible.

And as with Prodigy, you'll annoy more people than will send you money.   
Trust me, I know a lot of people that dropped Prodigy because of the  
obnoxious nature of the screen ads.

> Though it brings issues of Acceptable Use of USENET, checks can be
> currently made to Austin Public Net and you can receive a tax-deductible
> contribution for such deduction as we are currently tax deductible under
> the Alternative Networks Inc. 

UseNet has no AUP, UseNet has nobody to make one. It's anarchy, pure and  
simple (at least in it's "control"). 

> Memberships are another issue.

Memberships are dangerous... also, "fair market value" would most likely be  
higher than the cost we would charge, therefore, you wouldn't have a tax  
deduction.

I know I sound negative, but as someone who has been "networking" for years,  
I think people have fallen into the "Christmas Toy" syndrome.  Just because  
it's "new" doesn't mean it's a "gotta have it" item.  I think many people  
want Internet to their homes just because it's "cool," not neessarily because  
it would make them any more able to communicate.  When so much of the  
"communications" on Internet is still in E-mail, Mailing Lists and UseNet, I  
find it hard to believe that all of a sudden, you have to be ON Internet to  
do anything constructive.  While some people might want/need it, I think much  
of it is a fad.  I want to connect people, not to become another Internet  
serivce provider and a "Cheap PSI."  remember the goal is to connect people,  
not computers, let's try not to lose sight of that.

Chris
--
| Chris Petrilli
| petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu, petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu
| All opinions are my own, if they even belong to anyone.