From: jsq@tic.com (John Quarterman)
Subject: Re: Austin Free-Net? 
Originator: riddle@aahsa.tic.com
X-Submissions: eff-austin@tic.com
Organization: Texas Internet Consulting
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:40:18 GMT

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.

>  Lots
>>> of smaller sites in town are connected at 56k or Nx56k.  (H*ll, Tony
>>> Sanders (BSDI, here in town) has a 56k to his apt!)
>
>I appologies, I've been spending so much time dealing with NEARnet in
>recent times that I've forgotten who is on as what.  I believe UT has
>several T1 lines, if not a bit more.  I expect THEnet will move up to
>T3 soon if it hasn't already.  Best person to ask on this one would be
>JSQ. 

I have nothing directly to do with THEnet.  Several THEnet people have
been known to read this newsgroup or list; they can speak for themselves.
I will add some basic contextual commentary below, but if any of it is
wrong, I hope someone from the mentioned networks will correct it,
and supply any useful further details.

There are lots of companies in town with T1 connections, by the way.

>>> UT is the major Internet site in Austin because:
>>> 
>>> 1) UT is a major part of at least one (THEnet) and, I think, two (SESQInet)
>>> (John, correct me if I'm wrong) NSF regionals.

Yes, THEnet and SESQUINET are the NSFNET regionals in Texas.
THEnet is based at UT Austin, and SESQUINET at Rice.

>I believe the two are joined now, as THEnet was a Bitnet network, and
>now with Bitnet2, it is beginning to be unified with NSFnet (or so I
>am told by people who do Bitnet).

Huh?  No, THEnet was not just BITNET.  Like most IP networks (no doubt
including SESQUINET), THEnet has also carried BITNET traffic, using
BITNET II technology.

>>> 2) UT has the greatest potential Internet user-base.  (50k students
>>> + staff.)
>
>Right, and also, because of their research at the balcones research
>center and the CHPC< they have need for high performance networking.

?  UT already has networks.  However, if you're trying to reach former
students who no longer have access....

Personally, I think the freenet approach has its benefits, mainly
in very low end access for people who otherwise wouldn't be able
to get on the net.  It also has its drawbacks, mainly in being difficult
to scale, because revenues are not directly related to expenses.

>I think perhaps we should look at not an either/or, but a both/and
>approach as I was taught by people at the MediaLab.  Why limit people
>to one approach?  Why not give people what is most appropriate for
>them?

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.

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.

You can put KA9Q on a DOS machine and have SLIP by dialup in your house.

>We would definately be pushing POP to it's limits, and I think we need
>to consider some of the IETF WG work on remote mail access. POP is too
>limited for this project I think, if we do it this way.

Why does there have to be only one solution?

Thanks,
John

John S. Quarterman
Texas Internet Consulting (TIC)
jsq@tic.com
+1-512-329-1047
fax: +1-512-327-1274
Building 2 Suite 300
1120 South Capitol of Texas Highway
Austin, TX 78746
U.S.A.

New address, starting 10 October:
TIC:	+1-512-451-6176
MIDS:	+1-512-451-7602
fax:	+1-512-450-1436
1106 Clayton Lane, Suite 500W
Austin, TX 78723
U.S.A.


Newsgroups: austin.eff