Restricting the flow of GNU sw
Lambert Meertens
> On 14 Aug 90 10:12:35 GMT, j...@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) said:
>> In article <PCG.90Au...@athene.cs.aber.ac.uk>) p...@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
May I respectfully submit the suggestion that you talk this out over a pint
of beer or some other less public medium?
--Lambert Meertens, CWI, Amsterdam; lam...@cwi.nl
--
--Lambert Meertens, CWI, Amsterdam; lam...@cwi.nl
Piercarlo Grandi
On 24 Aug 90 02:25:20 GMT, lam...@cwi.nl (Lambert Meertens) said:
lambert> In article <PCG.90Au...@athene.cs.aber.ac.uk>
lambert> p...@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
> On 14 Aug 90 10:12:35 GMT, j...@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) said:
>> In article <PCG.90Au...@athene.cs.aber.ac.uk>) p...@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
lambert> May I respectfully submit the suggestion that you talk this out
lambert> over a pint of beer or some other less public medium?
Well, I do not know why Jim Reid insists so much in personal attacks;
maybe just because he has greater respect for News traditions than me :-).
The public medium is very appropriate for the merit of this discussion;
the issue of closed networks or groups, {UK,EU}U{UG,NET} [or ClariNet
(TM), but I do not know whether it carries or restricts redistribution
of the gnu.all newgroups and mailing lists and the GPL sources posted in
the sources newgroups], which forbid redistribution to non members and
its relationship to the aims of the FSF (less information hoarding) is I
think an issue to be discussed publicly, and I have I reckon stuck to
it.
Another interesting related issue to discuss publicly and not over a
beer is that of compilation copyrights of collections of GPL documents
and software; Jim Reid has hinted that the various {UK,EU}{UUG,NET}
organizations have compilation copyrights on their tape distributions
etc...; these may well cover GPL materials.
I hope it is appreciated that I have carefully refrained from
slighting Jim Reid or the UKUUG and the EUUG that he seems so keen
about (is he officially speaking for the UKUUG or UKNET by any
chance?). I have the greatest respect for UKUUG and UKNET, whose
staff are often volunteer, or little paid, and have anyhow produced
a lot of useful work (the conferences are always a success, the
UKUUG repository at Imperial is very well organized, the UKNET and
EUNET gateways work quite well, just to mention a few things).
I like less the slant towards favouring institutional members at
the expense of individual and student members, but that is a
consequence of how the membership is composed I guess (not of who
pays the bills maybe, because I reckon that individual and student
members pay proportionately much more than institutional members).
The solution to this discussion is not talking over a beer; it would be
1) the FSF defending their copyright and talking straight to EUUG/UKUUG
and EUNET/UKNET about removing any fetters from the redistribution of at
least the GPL material or else not distributing it
or
2) the {UK,E}U{UG,NET} getting wiser and changing the wording
of their membership contract to something like
* Special arrangements with other organizations or vendors made in
the interest of members are personal and non transferable (just
like a UNIX source license :->).
* No more than one copy (or a number of copies equal to the ratio
between the institutional membership fee and the individual
one) of each item available from or thru the group may be
obtained at the price reserved for members.
which is *very* different from the existing clause, and is not a blanket
prohibition (as Jim Reid put it:
jim> The stuff that the UKUUG is trying to protect are things like
jim> newsletters, tape distributions and conference proceedings,
so clearly) on giving away (originals or copies) of documentation or
software obtained thanks to the UKUUG, with no exception made not even
for GPL materials. Such a change would also make these organizations
look a bit less corporatist, at least in my eyes.
I think that I will now try to make the second alternative happen by
writing to the {UK,E}U{UG,NET} saying that I cannot sign their
membership contract as it is because it would mean consenting to
limitations of my right to give away copies of GPL material obtained
thru them, which I would not accept, and asking them to change the
contract. {UK,E}U{UG,NET} members that care about information hoarding
in general, and that of GPL material in particular could also take up
the matter.
What should not be public is the kind of personal attack that somebody
else indulges in, quite foolishly.
I might also mention to the UKUUG that, if he is a member or an
official sposkeman for them, a certain Jim Reid may be
bringing them into disrepute, and his membership contract may
have to be terminated :-) :-) :-). Not that I like the relevant
applicable corporatist clause, which is customarily used by
the management of a society to muzzle public criticism from the
membership, but somebody could have a taste of that kind of
medicine. :-) :-) :-)
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac....@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: p...@cs.aber.ac.uk
Ian Dickinson
>institutional membership, even if you qualify as an individual or
>student member of the UKUUG. I cannot imagine a rationale for this (and
>IMNHO the rationale for restricting membership of UKNET only to UKUUG
>members is already weak enough, given that they both maintain to be
>entirely separate organizations).
This (IMHO) is insane but true.
I would have quite happily had a home site with e-mail/news if this
wasn't the case. I can't afford an institutional membership of
the UKUUG. I, therefore, can't afford to be another site to share
the costs between - which would make it cheaper for all. The current
way I'm not even an individual member, as I gain nothing from it.
My queries usually get a reply of: "Just do it from work."
Which cuts out a lot of potential *PAYING* users.
NEhow, that aside the UKUUG aren't all bad.
--
\/ato. Ian Dickinson. GNU's not got BSE. Cut Cerebus some slack!
va...@cu.warwick.ac.uk Plinth.
va...@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk Sabeq.
gdd...@cck.cov.ac.uk "Nuke me tender, nuke me good!"
Dominic Dunlop
In article <1990Sep4.1...@warwick.ac.uk> cu...@warwick.ac.uk
(Ian Dickinson) writes:
> I would have quite happily had a home site with e-mail/news if this
> [needing to be a corporate member of UKUUG to get on the net in UK]
> wasn't the case. I can't afford an institutional membership of
> the UKUUG.
Aw, c'mon. Individual membership costs pounds 60, institutional pounds
110 (or did, last time I paid). I can assure you that getting a full
Trailblazer newsfeed via Mercury at ``a'' rate costs on the order of
pounds 110 PER MONTH. UKnet is likely to charge more than pounds 60
PER QUARTER for service. And the costs of servicing the capital tied
up in the hardware necessary to get the service are not insignificant.
The extra pounds 50 for institutional membership recedes to
drop-in-the-bucket status. The fact is that news ain't cheap -- except
on a per volume basis. Trouble is, there's so much volume. Still,
since a discussion of GNU software started all this, we can't complain
about volume...
Being more constructive, and less beligerent (sorry about that), is
there any official UKNET policy on employees or members of organisation
X, where X is a corporate member of UKUUG and is connected to UKNET,
having systems at home which appear to be subsumed into X as far as the
outside world is concerned? Examining my conscience, I can see nothing
wrong in this: it just seems like an extension of the LANs around which
many organisations distribute mail and news. Besides: a) people are
doing it anyway; and b) if it were prohibited, how would you police it?
(Assuming that news submission and mailer programs have been correctly
set up to make the whole organisation look like a single system.)
The economics look a bit different if all you want is a private mail
service, although, even then, I don't think they're that bad. However,
it may be cheaper to get and send mail through a service like CIX or
the IBM PC User Group than to connect directly to UKNET, now that these
organisations provide mail gateways to the Net. (Don't they?)
--
Dominic Dunlop
John Pettitt
>Being more constructive, and less beligerent (sorry about that), is
>there any official UKNET policy on employees or members of organisation
>X, where X is a corporate member of UKUUG and is connected to UKNET,
>having systems at home which appear to be subsumed into X as far as the
>outside world is concerned? Examining my conscience, I can see nothing
>wrong in this: it just seems like an extension of the LANs around which
>many organisations distribute mail and news. Besides: a) people are
>doing it anyway; and b) if it were prohibited, how would you police it?
>(Assuming that news submission and mailer programs have been correctly
>set up to make the whole organisation look like a single system.)
As Domo says there is no policy and it is happening now.
If the organization has a domain based mailer to hide behind then it's
easy - you just dont say anything and apprear to be another machine
in the frozbozz.co.uk domain. If not then you register the machine as
another system at the same organization (see dolmus) and again it's
no problem.
Most of the noise is this discussion about uknet charges is from people
who set up straw men then hack them down. The facts are that it
costs money to get news/main from the US and somebody has to pay.
However you charge it out you are going to upset somebody. Domo
has a one person system and pays the same as Specialix where news is
available on 10 systems on the internal network, this is not `fair'
but it's simple to administer. This is fine while ukc have a monopoly
on news in the UK.
What is going to be interesting is the advent of TCP/IP (Alternet /
InterEUnet) in the UK. If we (Specialix) get an Alternet connection
which we are probably going to do then we will bring in our own
news feed using nntp using spare capacity on the link. Then we face
the ethical problem of do we take business from uknet by offering
news feeds FREE to anybody we have capacity for. Right now I don't
know how we are going to solve this one. I have asked uknet to comment
on the problem and it has got bogged down in the UKC politics.
If UKNET does not offer IP connectivity in the UK soon they will loose
the monopoly position they hold now and the net will disintigrate (imminent
death of the net predicted :-).
--
John Pettitt, Specialix International,
Email: j...@specialix.com Tel +44 (0) 9323 54254 Fax +44 (0) 9323 52781
Disclaimer: Me, say that ? Never, it's a forged posting !
Nigel Whitfield
> The economics look a bit different if all you want is a private mail
> service, although, even then, I don't think they're that bad. However,
> it may be cheaper to get and send mail through a service like CIX or
> the IBM PC User Group than to connect directly to UKNET, now that these
> organisations provide mail gateways to the Net. (Don't they?)
Both CIX and IBMPCUG provide mail services. I'm not familiar with CIX,
but I know that they can exchange mail with people over UKNet, as can
users of the IBM PC User Group.
The User Group system provides full access to Usenet and mail; I think
that CIX provides read-only access to Usenet, but doubtless someone
from there will be able to give more information.
I'm not an employee of the User Group, but I do use their system
heavily, and quite like it. If you want more information, contact the
sysop, Matthew Farwell, by mail to dy...@ibmpcug.co.uk or by
telephoning the User Group on 081-863 1191. I think you can register
on-line by calling 081-861 5522 (v21, v22, v23) or 081-863 6646 (v21,
v22, v23, v22bis, Hayes-V series)
Nigel.
--
Nigel Whitfield "Should have told him
n.whi...@ibmpcug.co.uk I'd do anything if I could hold him
n.whi...@uk.ac.edinburgh For just another day"
******* Gay in the UK? Join the uk-motss mailing list NOW!!! *******
Simon E Spero
>pounds 110 PER MONTH. UKnet is likely to charge more than pounds 60
>PER QUARTER for service. And the costs of servicing the capital tied
That is correct as far as it goes, but it ignores one very important point about
home feeds- they tend not to take a _full_ feed- just the groups of
interest to people in the house/flat. Drop the talk groups and
comp.sys.amiga.all and you've down to about 10K a week :-)
Simon
--
zma...@uk.ac.ic.doc | sis...@cix.co.uk | ..!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!cix!sispero
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Poll Tax. | Saddam Hussein runs Lotus 123 on | DoC,IC,London SW7 2BZ
I'm Not. Are you?| Apple Macs.| I love the smell of Sarin in the morning
Daniel Karrenberg
>If UKNET does not offer IP connectivity in the UK soon they will loose
>the monopoly position they hold now and the net will disintigrate (imminent
>death of the net predicted :-).
They know that, or at least they have been told many times by
-amongst others- your's truly
--
Daniel Karrenberg Future Net: <d...@cwi.nl>
CWI, Amsterdam Oldie Net: mcsun!dfk
The Netherlands Because It's There Net: DFK@MCVAX
tre...@trevan.uucp
>However you charge it out you are going to upset somebody. Domo
>has a one person system and pays the same as Specialix where news is
>available on 10 systems on the internal network, this is not `fair'
>but it's simple to administer. This is fine while ukc have a monopoly
>on news in the UK.
How true. Infact the small sites are subsidising the large sites. Charges
for mail should be based usage with no suscription!. I have protested about
this to uknet over many years. The only answer is for small users to form
their own network.
>What is going to be interesting is the advent of TCP/IP (Alternet /
>InterEUnet) in the UK. If we (Specialix) get an Alternet connection
>which we are probably going to do then we will bring in our own
>news feed using nntp using spare capacity on the link. Then we face
>the ethical problem of do we take business from uknet by offering
>news feeds FREE to anybody we have capacity for.
I do not think there is an ethical problem here. It has always
been a principle of Usenet that it should be as freely available
as possible. If Specialix can supply the news cheaper great
After all UKC could also take its news from Specialix too and so we all
benifit.
Why do we need to wait for UKC to set up a TCP/IP network?.
It does seem to me that it realy is UKUUG who should be doing alot more
to expand the net but they have just left UKC to do what they like.
I am sure there are many companies like Specialix who would be interested
in expanding the network. We already have a large network of sites who
provide a free service. UKC is the only one who charges.
If UKUUG does not want to do this we should set up a new user group to
administer a uk network.
Could someone from UKUUG tell us why seem to do very little in this area.
Philip Peake
>beer is that of compilation copyrights of collections of GPL documents
>and software; Jim Reid has hinted that the various {UK,EU}{UUG,NET}
>organizations have compilation copyrights on their tape distributions
>etc...; these may well cover GPL materials.
>
>
>The solution to this discussion is not talking over a beer; it would be
>
>1) the FSF defending their copyright and talking straight to EUUG/UKUUG
>and EUNET/UKNET about removing any fetters from the redistribution of at
>least the GPL material or else not distributing it
Sorry if what I say here has already been said, but I have been away
from Europe for a few months, and I missed the previous postings.
But, to set the record stright: There IS a copyright on EUUG software
distributions. This does NOT apply to the contents, except in exceptional
circumstances which are clearly expressed.
Anyone (being a member of the EUUG) is free to take any non-copyright
material from these tapes, re-package it in any way they choose, and give
it to anyone that they want to.
What they CAN'T do is to simply duplicate the tape.
Why ?, well, believe it or not, the compliaton of these tapes takes
considerable time, effort and money. This is paid for by EUUG members,
and is a service of the EUUG for its members.
In the past there have been instances of various groups of people taking
these tapes, duplicating them and giving them away, or even selling them.
EUUG makes no profit from this service, the tapes are "sold" at cost, which
is the total price of the work of compilation and manufacture of the tapes.
Obviously, someone making a few pirate copies on their companies machines
(maybe even on company tapes) can do the job cheaper. EUUG, nor its members
want to subsidise this sort of activity.
As for GNU software, we have one tape which is GNU only, this is distributed
under the conditions of cost + a small percentage for FSF.
The only reason for doing this is to give EUUG members the possibility of
getting their software in Europe, rather than paying transatlantic transport
costs on a real FSF tape.
Philip Peake, EUUG software distributions.
Jim Reid
How true. Infact the small sites are subsidising the large sites. Charges
for mail should be based usage with no suscription!. I have protested about
this to uknet over many years. The only answer is for small users to form
their own network.
But UKC does charge sites for their mail usage! The subscription over
and above that is to cover UKC's overheads in terms of equipment, staff
and support. Consider the 3p/Kbyte as contributing to the costs of the
lines (line rental, uucp telephone calls etc) while the subscription
covers the cost of keeping the service up and running.
Of course, UKC could cut the cost of one by increasing the cost for
the other. No matter how they choose to recover their costs, they will
never keep everyone happy.
On the whole, UKC's charging policy does seem fair to me. Everyone
who gets netnews pays a equal share of the transmission costs.
Everyone pays the same cost per kilobyte for mail. Everyone pays an
equal share of the costs of maintaining the service. [Note that
although the academics pay a lower subscription than commercial sites,
this is because the JNT contribute cash and equipment as a part of
their policy of supporting the academic network infrastructure. What
the universities and colleges don't pay directly is paid for by the
JNT.]
I do accept that the subscription becomes more significant for low
volume mail sites. One way this could be alleviated would be to have
several subscription rates based on each site's traffic, low volume
sites paying less than the high volume ones. How easy this could be
done, I don't know. Naturally, if UKC did this, the low volume sites
would be happy, but the high volume ones would not. They could then
reasonably argue that they were subsidising everyone else's usage.
Why do we need to wait for UKC to set up a TCP/IP network?.
We don't, but this would be the most sensible place to start. They
already have an IP link to mcsun and have an existing customer base.
They also have the wherewithal - cash flow, staff, expertise and a
billing system - to run this service. [OK, we all know that they're
overworked but it's much easier for them to do it than for someone
else to come along and start from scratch.]
It does seem to me that it realy is UKUUG who should be doing alot more
to expand the net but they have just left UKC to do what they like.
I am sure there are many companies like Specialix who would be interested
in expanding the network. We already have a large network of sites who
provide a free service. UKC is the only one who charges.
I doubt very much if anyone would provide a free Internet service.
There's more to it than just stringing cables together. [Just
stringing a transatlantic IP link together will set you back about
#100,000 a year in rental. Know anyone who has that sort of money to
burn?] There's also the issues of providing a name server and where
one gets connected to the Internet. This can involve all sorts of
awkward questions and political problems. If say Specialix got a link,
would they run DNS on behalf of the UK? (For free?) Would the NIC be
prepared to give them control over the .UK domain, even though other
bodies have already asked the NIC to assume authority for .UK?
If UKUUG does not want to do this we should set up a new user group to
administer a uk network.
Could someone from UKUUG tell us why seem to do very little in this area.
The UKUUG dearly wants a UK IP network to be set up. It is actively
working towards that goal. However, it has to take account of two
things. The first is money. A mimimal IP backbone network in the UK
will cost tens of thousands of pounds in kit and line installation and
similar sums (more?) in annual rentals and running costs. The UKUUG
doesn't have that sort of money to spend. The second is that a number
of other bodies are looking at providing IP in the UK too. It would be
better for everyone involved to co-operate to provide the best
possible service over the widest possible area for the least money.
Finding out what everyone is up to takes time.
Jim
Andy Ingle
>How true. Infact the small sites are subsidising the large sites. Charges
>for mail should be based usage with no subscription!. I have protested about
>this to uknet over many years. The only answer is for small users to form
>their own network.
This is a good point, but who pays for the calls! Imagine yourself to
be setting up a new small commercial UKNET site in Cambridge. You're
going to use uucp over a dialup line, but UKC won't accept any more
connections and in any case you would prefer a local call. You shop
around and discover Acorn (acorn.co.uk) will accept UKNET connections
so you approach me and I agree to a link. You will be paying for your
telephone call to Acorn, but Acorn pays the cost of getting your mail
to/from UKC - a long distance call and expensive too, none of this
night-only nonsense.
Acorn does have a number of these sites and makes no charge for their
mail. I've always regarded it as a "service to the UNIX community" but
I do think that in terms of total cost and resources Acorn puts in more
than its "fair share", and there must be a number similar situations
elsewhere in the UK. From time to time I've toyed with the idea of
setting up an independant network for commercial sites with a modest
element of profit. Unfortunately there are a number of snags:
* Each site would have to dial in to the server machine, so sites
far away would be making long-distance calls.
* All costs would have to be recovered, so there would be charges
for UK mail. It could only undercut UKC in cases where sites
send hardly any mail. Such sites wouldn't bother joining in
the first place.
* British Telecom might try to claim that its a "Value Added
Network" - I disagree (all the routing is being done inside the
server) but can't afford to be sued.
* (probably) UKC would try to stop any link between the new net
and UKNET.
* Links to the rest of the world would be needed - this might be
quite hard if the academic community disapproves of the net.
* The net would only last as long as uucp over modems remains the
accepted way to do things. There would be no spare cash to play
with TCP/IP, OSI, X.25, X.400 or any of the weird and wonderful
things that the academic community get access to. Once you step
outside university R&D has to be paid for.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be fun to set up, but it would need
customers. My guess is that many of the sites currently griping
about UKC's charges would find the alternative net unacceptable
too.
--Andy Ingle
John Pettitt
>In article <1990Sep07.1...@trevan.uucp> tre...@trevan.uucp writes:
> It does seem to me that it realy is UKUUG who should be doing alot more
> to expand the net but they have just left UKC to do what they like.
> I am sure there are many companies like Specialix who would be interested
> in expanding the network. We already have a large network of sites who
> provide a free service. UKC is the only one who charges.
>I doubt very much if anyone would provide a free Internet service.
>There's more to it than just stringing cables together. [Just
>stringing a transatlantic IP link together will set you back about
>#100,000 a year in rental. Know anyone who has that sort of money to
>burn?] There's also the issues of providing a name server and where
>one gets connected to the Internet. This can involve all sorts of
>awkward questions and political problems. If say Specialix got a link,
>would they run DNS on behalf of the UK? (For free?) Would the NIC be
>prepared to give them control over the .UK domain, even though other
>bodies have already asked the NIC to assume authority for .UK?
Sorry but I can't resist this one. Firstly Specialix in NOT in
the IP network business ! However if due to the political
problems in UKC we have to set up our own IP connection to
the US we will offer news feeds over uucp on a you call us basis
probably for free. As for the .UK domain - we already have
specialix.com on the books - we would drop the .co.uk and leave
uknet. I hope that this situation does not come to pass - however
the cost of our modems is now very close to the $4500 a month
than a leased line + alternet connection in california would
cost. I, for business resons, must have IP from here to
the US by june 1991 - given the lead times on lines if UKC
does not sh*t or get off the pot by jan 1 we will go our own way.
UKC has the line now, Spider have offered a FREE router to them
and they still won't move - just who is paying who for a service
here ?
Angry of byfleet.
Piercarlo Grandi
zmacx07> In article <1990Sep5.0...@tsa.co.uk> do...@tsa.co.uk
zmacx07> (Dominic Dunlop) writes:
domo> Trailblazer newsfeed via Mercury at ``a'' rate costs on the order
domo> of pounds 110 PER MONTH. UKnet is likely to charge more than
domo> pounds 60 PER QUARTER for service. And the costs of servicing the
domo> capital tied
zmacx07> That is correct as far as it goes, but it ignores one very
zmacx07> important point about home feeds- they tend not to take a
zmacx07> _full_ feed- just the groups of interest to people in the
zmacx07> house/flat. Drop the talk groups and comp.sys.amiga.all and
zmacx07> you've down to about 10K a week :-)
Not just that -- nobody has ever said that the newsfeed has to be
remote.
A small site would typically, just like in the USA, want to hang off a
larger site within the same local call area.
Unfortunately BT unlike the Bell companies charges local calls by the
minute, but even so, a local call newsfeed for the newsgroups that you
are interested in is probably very much lower cost than Dominic Dunlop
thinks -- his numbers are only true for the worst case.
Given that somebody *has* to pay the cost of bringing in the USA news,
the current charing scheme, and the restrictions to the free flow flow
of news that underpin it, makes a very good job of favoring large sites
at the expense of small ones.
tre...@trevan.uucp
>elsewhere in the UK. From time to time I've toyed with the idea of
>setting up an independant network for commercial sites with a modest
>element of profit. Unfortunately there are a number of snags:
> * Each site would have to dial in to the server machine, so sites
> far away would be making long-distance calls.
BT midnight service could be used.
> server) but can't afford to be sued.
I dont think they would as they would loose lots of money if they did.
BT turned a blind eye to the illegal international telex message forwarding
which was going on in this country.
> * (probably) UKC would try to stop any link between the new net
> and UKNET.
When I first complained about the subscription uknet did say they they
would not even forward internal uk mail if I didnt pay up.
> * Links to the rest of the world would be needed - this might be
> quite hard if the academic community disapproves of the net.
The whole idea of a network is communication and
the Unix community has been greatly enriched by having such a network.
The academic community in the past has been very strongly infavour of
freedom of information. The isolation of any community from the net could
be construde as a restriction on achademic freedom.
The Universities are now becoming more dependent on the Industry for its
cash. I would not of thought it would be very productive to alianate the
any part of that Industry.
Most Universities seem keen to improve their relationship with industry.
Network interconnectivity would be a very effective way to enhance
that relationship.
> * The net would only last as long as uucp over modems remains the
> accepted way to do things. There would be no spare cash to play
> with TCP/IP, OSI, X.25, X.400 or any of the weird and wonderful
> things that the academic community get access to. Once you step
> outside university R&D has to be paid for.
I think that any new network should use TCP/IP from the start.
--
regards trevor
tre...@trevan.co.uk
Ronald S H Khoo
> On the whole, UKC's charging policy does seem fair to me. Everyone
> who gets netnews pays a equal share of the transmission costs.
Eh ? You mean "every *site* regardless of size pays an equal share of the
costs" sounds fair to you ? Here, there are only two of us who read news
and we pay as much as your University or any large commercial site. That
hardly seems fair to me.
Besides, the current charging policy *actively discourages* small news
users to come into the cost sharing structure. Small sites who have a
few readers reading a couple of newsgroups often just have a friend mail
them (OK, so it's not *supposed* to happen, but it does, doesn't it ?
And can you blame them when they can't find a way to pay their "fair share"
without paying for every one else's "fair share" too?)
> One way this could be alleviated would be to have
> several subscription rates based on each site's traffic,
But then academic sites would end up paying NOTHING (or be on the lowest
scale anyway) since their mail all goes through nsf.ac.uk which is not
subject to UKNet accounting ... (or is this a plot by you, Jim ? :-)
> The UKUUG dearly wants a UK IP network to be set up. It is actively
> working towards that goal.
I just hope that support for UUCP sites won't be dropped. For many
of us, IP will *never* be viable. I guess UUCP will be with us forever.
> The second is that a number
> of other bodies are looking at providing IP in the UK too. It would be
> better for everyone involved to co-operate to provide the best
> possible service over the widest possible area for the least money.
I'm not sure about that. Sometimes I do wonder if what UKNet needs is a
little market force competition to drive efficientcy and recruitment up.
For the current news/mail service, ukc does have a rather unfair
advantage with its direct JANET connection, being on a University campus
and all, but unless the JNT are going to allow anyone's IP packets over
JANET (hah!) this advantage would partly disappear for an IP network.
There is still the advantage of an installed customer base and the problems
any competitor would have getting mail into JANET (to USA and back in via
nsf.ac.uk, I guess :-() and the rest of the current UKNet but I guess all
this is pretty academic.
What I do fear is that it will take so long that the companies that would
be putting up enough money to help make this all happen would have got fed
up and done it some other way long ago. Already we have lost the big guns
of the UNIX industry (dec, hp, sun, etc) to their own networks, now
slxsys!jpp is leading the way for the next lot to vote out with their feet.
The academics don't have a problem, with their NSF funded USA connection
and their (currently unofficial, but soon to become official?) IP
tunnels over JANET, so I guess that leaves just the smaller commercial
organisations on their own. Am I wrong to look at this in such a bleak
fashion ?
--
my .signature is on holiday
tre...@trevan.uucp
>Sorry but I can't resist this one. Firstly Specialix in NOT in
>the IP network business ! However if due to the political
>problems in UKC we have to set up our own IP connection to
>the US we will offer news feeds over uucp on a you call us basis
>probably for free.
It would be good if you setup the link in anycase. I dont expect it
to be free but it would be good to have a choice. In any case the
University Authorities could pull the plugs on UKNET at any time.
>UKC has the line now, Spider have offered a FREE router to them
>and they still won't move - just who is paying who for a service
>here ?
I guess that the line is paid for by our subscriptions!
regards trevor
--
regards trevor
tre...@trevan.co.uk
tre...@trevan.uucp
>and support. Consider the 3p/Kbyte as contributing to the costs of the
>lines (line rental, uucp telephone calls etc) while the subscription
>covers the cost of keeping the service up and running.
My last quarter bill for mail came to 93.82 pounds for 298033 bytes of mail.
This works out at 31p/Kbyte! which I think is expensive. Most of ukc's costs
are volume related and I think it is difficult to justify 340 pounds per year
to send out 4 invoices and maintain the map. I suspect the reason for the
subscription is to discourage small users from joining. This has encouraged
people to hide behind other machines.
>Of course, UKC could cut the cost of one by increasing the cost for
>the other. No matter how they choose to recover their costs, they will
>never keep everyone happy.
From what I remember of ukc's traffic figures the increase in trafic costs
would be insignificant if the subscription was scrapped.
>although the academics pay a lower subscription than commercial sites,
>this is because the JNT contribute cash and equipment as a part of
>their policy of supporting the academic network infrastructure. What
>the universities and colleges don't pay directly is paid for by the
>JNT.]
And where does JNT get its money from ME! :-)
> Why do we need to wait for UKC to set up a TCP/IP network?.
>We don't, but this would be the most sensible place to start. They
I have always been concerned that UKC have a monopoly on usenet access.
The University authorities could pull the plug at any time. I think we
should be looking to provide as many diverse links as possible.
>stringing a transatlantic IP link together will set you back about
>#100,000 a year in rental.
BT are quoting 1.40 pounds per minute for 56kbit ISDN links to the States.
With an overhead of say 50% that works out at 80p/Mbyte.
>The UKUUG dearly wants a UK IP network to be set up.
Sorry I was not aware of this. I didnt think they were involved in the
comms side of Unix.
Usenet was started by the informal stringing together of a few sites in the
States. IP with its semiautomatic routing capabilaties is much more
suited to such interconnection. ISDN should provide us with a fantastic
bit of string and we will live happily ever after.
Jim Reid
My last quarter bill for mail came to 93.82 pounds for 298033 bytes
of mail. This works out at 31p/Kbyte! which I think is expensive.
Most of ukc's costs are volume related and I think it is difficult
to justify 340 pounds per year to send out 4 invoices and maintain
the map.
True, but you're only mentioning the things you see. What about the
costs of the 2 or 3 staff that work on UKnet all the time? What about
the dedicated machine that UKC provide for uucp dialup? What about the
other machine that's dedicated to handling the mail? What about the
costs of running these computers? You don't see these things, but they
have to be paid for and without them there would be no net.
[As for costs, you claim below that BT charge ISDN at 80p/Kbyte and
seem to suggest that this is reasonable. Bear in mind that BT's
service is just for the line; not for a mail system on top of it.
Making a comparison there suggests that UKC is giving you a bargain
albeit one you think isn't cheap enough. Just look at the costs of
the alternatives....]
I suspect the reason for the subscription is to discourage
small users from joining.
This is utter garbage. The subscription is to cover the other
overheads - computers, maintenance, staff, etc. - that have to be paid
for. It may be that the subscription has had the effect of
discouraging small sites, but that was/is not the intention. UKnet was
told it could not continue to be subsidised by the largesse of the
University of Kent in providing the support infrastructure for free.
It was because UKC was passing these costs to UKnet that the
subscriptions had to be introduced.
I have always been concerned that UKC have a monopoly on usenet access.
The University authorities could pull the plug at any time. I think we
should be looking to provide as many diverse links as possible.
Two points. UKC does not have "a monopoly on usenet access". There's
nothing (save the horrendous costs of course) to stop you getting news
and mail by becoming a UUNET subscriber and dialling them in the USA.
In fact, some sites did this (and do this) for newsgroups that UKC
don't provide.
Everyone is well aware that UKnet depends too much on the goodwill on
the authorities at the University of Kent. It is not an easy problem
to solve.
Jim
Piercarlo Grandi
jpp> j...@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes:
jim> In article <1990Sep07.1...@trevan.uucp>
jim> tre...@trevan.uucp writes:
trevor> It does seem to me that it realy is UKUUG who should be doing
trevor> alot more to expand the net but they have just left UKC to do
trevor> what they like. I am sure there are many companies like
trevor> Specialix who would be interested in expanding the network. We
trevor> already have a large network of sites who provide a free
trevor> service. UKC is the only one who charges.
jim> I doubt very much if anyone would provide a free Internet service.
jim> There's more to it than just stringing cables together. [Just
jim> stringing a transatlantic IP link together will set you back about
jim> #100,000 a year in rental. Know anyone who has that sort of money to
jim> burn?]
Free, maybe not in the sense of "free of charge", but surely in the
sense of "free of fetters". Moreover some companies already have their
private links to the USA, within their private networks, and seem quite
happy to let others share, as long as they call. I am sure about
Olivetti, but I think also HP and Pyramid have something like that. I
seem to remember that in Germany the SUBnet get their transatlantic news
feed from Pyramid, and in Italy they get it from Olivetti (if I remember
well even the I2U "official" branch of EUnet maybe getting it from them
by now).
jim> There's also the issues of providing a name server and where one
jim> gets connected to the Internet. This can involve all sorts of
jim> awkward questions and political problems. If say Specialix got a
jim> link, would they run DNS on behalf of the UK? (For free?) Would the
jim> NIC be prepared to give them control over the .UK domain, even
jim> though other bodies have already asked the NIC to assume authority
jim> for .UK?
I cannot resist a chuckle in pointing out that the mess has already been
done! And by the official bodies -- if you switch to some subgroups of
comp.protocols, there has just been a full discussion on the mess that
has arisen out of the .UK top level domain being managed by NIC/JNT.
I think (another chuckle here) that the .UK domain could well be left in
the hands of the civil servants, and someboy else could manage .GB :-).
Or, more practically, just do like the SUBnet people have done --
register a domain under .ORG...
jpp> Sorry but I can't resist this one. Firstly Specialix in NOT in
jpp> the IP network business ! However if due to the political
jpp> problems in UKC we have to set up our own IP connection to
jpp> the US we will offer news feeds over uucp on a you call us basis
jpp> probably for free.
Ohhh - I like this guy a lot...
jpp> As for the .UK domain - we already have specialix.com on the books
jpp> - we would drop the .co.uk [ ... ]
...and he knows how to make sense as well. Uhm. There is hope.
Jim Reid
j...@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes:
> On the whole, UKC's charging policy does seem fair to me. Everyone
> who gets netnews pays a equal share of the transmission costs.
Eh ? You mean "every *site* regardless of size pays an equal share of the
costs" sounds fair to you ? Here, there are only two of us who read news
and we pay as much as your University or any large commercial site. That
hardly seems fair to me.
Well it's just too hard (and expensive) to do charge any other way.
How could UKC (the ones who meet the BT bill) determine *exactly* how
much news a site received or how many active news readers that site
had? It's just too hard and time consuming. You may also find that
some sites would deliberately distort the statistics gathering (if it
were possible) to minimise their bills.
If you can come up with a fairer and workable arrangement, I'm sure
that UKC will welcome you with open arms. The sad fact is that you'll
never come up with something that will keep everyone happy.
Besides, the current charging policy *actively discourages* small news
users to come into the cost sharing structure. Small sites who have a
few readers reading a couple of newsgroups often just have a friend mail
them (OK, so it's not *supposed* to happen, but it does, doesn't it ?
And can you blame them when they can't find a way to pay their "fair share"
without paying for every one else's "fair share" too?)
Well, that's just tough. So's life.
> One way this could be alleviated would be to have
> several subscription rates based on each site's traffic,
But then academic sites would end up paying NOTHING (or be on the lowest
scale anyway) since their mail all goes through nsf.ac.uk which is not
subject to UKNet accounting ... (or is this a plot by you, Jim ? :-)
And here I was thinking I had invented a "fairer" scheme. Internet
mail for academics will go via nsf.ac.uk because that is what the NRS
tells our mail systems to do. Sites like ours still put lots of
international mail via UKC because:
(a) some sites are only reachable via UKC - uucp only places;
sites that aren't known to nsf.ac.uk because they don't have a
DNS (sigh);
(b) some users explicitly route mail via UKC, despite the
"free" Internet gateway service at nsf.ac.uk;
(c) many parts of the world are only reachable via UKC who can
get to uunet and mcsun who have all sorts of obscure links.
[Do I get the prize for the longest sentence in a news article? :-)]
I'd guess that a substantial amount of UKC's mail traffic is paid for
by academics. The gateway at nsf.ac.uk isn't as wonderful as you seem
to think: it does a good job, but it's not good enough.
I just hope that support for UUCP sites won't be dropped. For many
of us, IP will *never* be viable. I guess UUCP will be with us forever.
UUCP will continue for as long as there enough people who can sustain
it. A UK IP service will not compromise the UUCP service based through
UKC. It may be a long term threat if/when more people switch to IP. Of
course everyone by then will have ISDN and BT will be selling IP...
I'm not sure about that. Sometimes I do wonder if what UKNet needs is a
little market force competition to drive efficientcy and recruitment up.
But UKC don't see their messaging services as being a business! If a
"competitor" came along, I'd bet UKC would gladly throw in the towel
and go back to being an ivory-towered institution. I don't think it's
realistic to expect a "competitor" to set up shop. The start up costs
are very high - don't expect much change out of 1 million quid - and
there would be a significant risk that that investment would not be
recouped quickly enough (if at all). The reasons for UKC's involvement
are largely historical. If they knew what was going to happen when it
started all those years ago, I don't think they'd have got involved.
UKnet has grown into something that doesn't belong in a university.
The academics don't have a problem, with their NSF funded USA connection
and their (currently unofficial, but soon to become official?) IP
tunnels over JANET, so I guess that leaves just the smaller commercial
organisations on their own. Am I wrong to look at this in such a bleak
fashion ?
Yes, you are wrong IMHO. Academics do have their problems: the free
Internet gateway is all very well, but it's very limiting because of
the restrictive nature of the service that they offer. Academics are
trying to improve things and there are encouraging signals coming from
the JNT. Some others are also looking closely at using IP in the UK.
The future looks promising.
As for the small commercial sites, you may be able to get SLIP access
for not much more than the cost of your UUCP telephone bills plus a
share of the infrastructure overheads. Much of those could already be
met by institutions who have comparatively deep pockets.
Jim
Piercarlo Grandi
trevor> an...@acorn.co.uk (Andy Ingle) writes:
andy> * (probably) UKC would try to stop any link between the new net
andy> and UKNET.
trevor> When I first complained about the subscription uknet did say they they
trevor> would not even forward internal uk mail if I didnt pay up.
This does not seem unreasonable -- they do have to cover some fixed
expenses. What is less reasonable is the EUNET backbone refusing to
carry e-mail originating from SUBnet sites (the continental,
USENET-style alternative to EUNET) *even if* the SUBnet-EUnet gateways
accept full responsibility for billing related to such traffic.
andy> * Links to the rest of the world would be needed - this might be
andy> quite hard if the academic community disapproves of the net.
trevor> The whole idea of a network is communication and the Unix
trevor> community has been greatly enriched by having such a network.
trevor> The academic community in the past has been very strongly
trevor> infavour of freedom of information. The isolation of any
trevor> community from the net could be construde as a restriction on
trevor> achademic freedom.
You seem to have a refreshingly innocent and naive view of UK
Universities and their staff, and of the level of their enthusiasm for
restrictive practices of any sort.
UK Universities, by contrast with *some* continental ones, have always
been bastions of the Establishment, whether Tory or Whig or Labour.
University education has, for hundreds of years, never been seen as a
public service, but as the training ground for the upper crust of loyal
civil servants and professionals. This is not the environment where
concerns for better "communication" and "freedom of information"
flourish. Those that thought otherwise have long since emigrated to the
USA.
trevor> Most Universities seem keen to improve their relationship with
trevor> industry. Network interconnectivity would be a very effective
trevor> way to enhance that relationship.
Most UK Universities are desperate for cash, and would not otherwise
care for industry -- after all many people choose work for a University
as an alternative to "commercial" work, and tend to be fairly "anti
capitalist" (either from the Labour left or from the Tory right!) as
well -- except that they have to pay lip service to links with industry,
to get money from the Government. I am fairly sure that better e-mail
communications with industry, instead of cash, would mean nothing to UK
Universities.
In practice "Universities" in this discussion is a meaningless term --
we should be speaking of their computing centers and computer science
departments. As to the former, they could not care less about a better
network, and the latter, it is my impression, have other concerns. There
are many individuals, in either organizations, endowed with good will,
but in most cases their cooperation is a purely personal initiative
without the informed consent of their Management.
If you want to get an UK branch of the SUBnet off the ground, self help,
rather than relying on pauperistic and uprobably uninterested
Universities, seems to be in order. Specialix and Spider (and maybe
Acorn) seem to be quite positive, and maybe an alternative network could
start to grow around them.
David Wright
In article <PCG.90Se...@teacho.cs.aber.ac.uk> p...@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
#Free, maybe not in the sense of "free of charge", but surely in the
#sense of "free of fetters". Moreover some companies already have their
#private links to the USA, within their private networks, and seem quite
#happy to let others share, as long as they call.
Most won't. I recall about a year ago during a similar arguement getting
a message from someone at Oracle in the US saying that their company had
private leased line links to several European sites, including in England
and somewhere near Amsterdam, and could they help us Europeans out over our
huge communications costs by providing a news feed over this system to
Europe. Very nice of him, but he was completely unaware that this would be
against Oracle company policy - in fact at that time (probably still)
Oracle UK did not have any connection into the UK net, alledgedly because
they were concerned that their security would be at risk.
OK, that little anecdote only shows that some offers are kind but useless
not that all are. However, what people should be aware of is that the
present ukc operation only got started when the UK's original news links
were cut off - originally news came in curtesy of a commercial organisation
which happened to have US lines, but when the project finished or whatever
so did the service. For most of us, free service is NOT a benefit - what
we need is a guaranteed service. People who want news on their private
machine would probably get a cheaper service by calling in to one of the
existing public news services such as ibmpcug - though actually I do think
there is a case for an individual rate for such sites.
#I think (another chuckle here) that the .UK domain could well be left in
#the hands of the civil servants, and someboy else could manage .GB :-).
Oh no! Not *two* different networks with the same suffix! :->
(For those who don't know, 'GB' is the country's official domain in X.400
addressing; RFC822---X.400 gateways distinguish which network to forward
RFC822 mail to partly on the basis of whether the country code is .uk or .gb
Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK
d...@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW
Living in a country without a written constitution means having to trust in
the Good Will of the Government and the Generosity of Civil Servants.
Piet Beertema
I think (another chuckle here) that the .UK domain could well
could manage .GB :-).
Oh no! Not *two* different networks with the same suffix! :->
(For those who don't know, 'GB' is the country's official domain in X.400
addressing; RFC822---X.400 gateways distinguish which network to forward
RFC822 mail to partly on the basis of whether the country code is .uk or .gb
about it that a country top level domain must be the 2-letter
code from ISO-3166.
The routing on domain.gb (X.400) resp. domain.uk (RFC822) is
comparable to the routing based on domain.dbp.de (X.400) resp.
domain.de (RFC822), except that in the latter case at least
the top level domain follows the standards. For users it is
of course a pain having to make this distinction; it really
ought to be transparent, i.e. the same form should be valid
in both worlds.
--
Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam (pi...@cwi.nl)
Ronald S H Khoo
> For most of us, free service is NOT a benefit - what
> we need is a guaranteed service.
Actually, having *both* would be a good idea. The current situation where
failure of *either one* of mc`arch` or ukc kills the whole feed dead is
not ideal. We would do well to encourage a site who gets news directly
(and perhaps from a site reasonably far from uunet) to feed into the UKNet,
again, into some well connected site some distance from ukc who is willing
to be the UKNet backup. Perhaps we should offer a waiver of UKNet fees to
encourage a currently non-UKnet UK based, US connected site ?
--
ron...@robobar.co.uk | +44 81 991 1142 (O) | +44 71 229 7741 (H) | YELL!
"Nothing sucks like a VAX" -- confirmed after recent radiator burst!
Hit 'R' <RETURN> to continue .....
tre...@trevan.uucp
>to be the UKNet backup. Perhaps we should offer a waiver of UKNet fees to
>encourage a currently non-UKnet UK based, US connected site ?
Are there ANY uk sites with a full news feed from the UK. I would be
willing to pay as long as I had the right to sell the news feed on and
cover some of my costs. The bigest drawback og the UKC feed is that UKC
wont allow passing news feeds on without loads of money.
--
regards trevor
tre...@trevan.co.uk
Bob Eager
> (For those who don't know, 'GB' is the country's official domain in X.400
> addressing; RFC822---X.400 gateways distinguish which network to forward
> RFC822 mail to partly on the basis of whether the country code is .uk or .gb
Just an observation...I wonder what moron thought up the use of GB...it is of
course a SUBSET of UK (what about Northen Ireland). Wonder what the Northern
Irish feel about that...
---------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Bob Eager | University of Kent at Canterbury
r...@ukc.ac.uk | +44 227 764000 ext 7589
---------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
*** NB *** Do NOT use the return path in the article header ***************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Orr
> In article <22...@charon.cwi.nl>, pi...@cwi.nl (Piet Beertema) writes:
>> (For those who don't know, 'GB' is the country's official domain in X.400
>> addressing; RFC822---X.400 gateways distinguish which network to forward
>> RFC822 mail to partly on the basis of whether the country code is .uk or .gb
>
> Just an observation...I wonder what moron thought up the use of GB...it is of
> course a SUBSET of UK (what about Northen Ireland). Wonder what the Northern
> Irish feel about that...
Well, this isn't the only example of this. A similar situation arises with
the nation sticker that you are supposed to put on your car outside the
country - GB. Of course, depending upon their political views, some (from NI) may
put an Irish Republic sticker on (cannot remember what it is), though I would
suspect that is technically illegal.
Neither case will cover someone mailing from the Isle of Man or Channel Islands
of course ;-)
To answer Bob's question, this nothern irish person has great difficulty working
up much angst about the (mis)use of ".gb". I guess we should be thankful they
didn't chose ".en" :-)
By the way, is there any other country in europe in which (I suspect) most of
the inhabitants couldn't give the correct name of their country?
Rodney
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Orr RT3324, British Telecom Research Labs., Martlesham Heath,
Ipswich IP5 7RE, U.K. Tele: +44 473 645091
e-mail: ro...@axion.bt.co.uk (...!mcsun!ukc!axion!rorr)
Ronald S H Khoo
> Just an observation...I wonder what moron thought up the use of GB...it is of
> course a SUBSET of UK (what about Northen Ireland). Wonder what the Northern
> Irish feel about that...
Depending on religion, perhaps some might prefer IE ? :-/
Personally, I *hate* this business of having separate countries.
How nice it would be if the whole world were just .COM, .EDU, .ORG, etc.
And I mean In Real Life, not just on the nets.
Neil Readwin
In article <1990Sep25....@robobar.co.uk>, ron...@robobar.co.uk
(Ronald S H Khoo) writes:
|> (and perhaps from a site reasonably far from uunet) to feed into the UKNet,
You mean one of those sites transferring news over their internal corporate
networks should actually start injecting it into the net over here ? Neil.
Disclaimer: 818 Phone: +44 71 528 8282 E-mail: nrea...@micrognosis.co.uk
W Westfield: Abstractions of hammers aren't very good at hitting real nails
Ronald S H Khoo
> You mean one of those sites transferring news over their internal corporate
> networks should actually start injecting it into the net over here ?
Why not ? It would get us some immunity from breakdowns anywhere
along uunet->mc`arch`->ukc (for much of the net) and might get us articles
that missed uunet altogether (and I'm sure these *do* existin backwaters
of the net)
Herman Verkade
>(For those who don't know, 'GB' is the country's official domain in X.400
>addressing; RFC822---X.400 gateways distinguish which network to forward
>RFC822 mail to partly on the basis of whether the country code is .uk or .gb
For those who didn't realise it: .UK is *not* a country domain, but in fact a
network domain. This is why UKC can hold a monopoly in the sense of not
allowing .UK without paying their charges.
Whether they can rightfully refuse anything for another UK network that uses
the proper .GB suffix I doubt. Anyway, who administers the .GB domain at the
moment?
Really a pain in the neck is that X.400 always uses .gold-400.gb. This means
that a site on both X.400 and on UKnet holds 2 addresses: one in the .uk domain
and one .gold-400.gb address. If another network were to grow in the UK that
would add a third address. Wasn't the whole point of country domains that one
site would have one address, no matter from what network you were accessing
it?
Herman Verkade
Joost Schraag
ro...@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk writes:
+ [...]
+ By the way, is there any other country in europe in which (I suspect) most of
+ the inhabitants couldn't give the correct name of their country?
+
Yes, we people from the Netherlands use Holland. Especially in
international communication.
Technically, Holland consists of just two provinces of the Netherlands.
Although the most important ones.
+ Rodney
+ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Rodney Orr RT3324, British Telecom Research Labs., Martlesham Heath,
+ Ipswich IP5 7RE, U.K. Tele: +44 473 645091
+ e-mail: ro...@axion.bt.co.uk (...!mcsun!ukc!axion!rorr)
Greetings from Holland, joost.
--
Joost Schraag e-mail: sch...@fwi.uva.nl ICBM: 52.22`N 04.54`E
Kruijswijk Lucas B
>In article <1990Sep26.1...@axion.bt.co.uk> (of eunet.followup)
> ro...@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk writes:
>+ [...]
>+ By the way, is there any other country in europe in which (I suspect) most of
>+ the inhabitants couldn't give the correct name of their country?
>international communication.
Translation of someone from the Netherlands in Polish: HOLENDERSKI.
Also the correct translation of The Netherlands in Spain is very unusual.
>Technically, Holland consists of just two provinces of the Netherlands.
>Although the most important ones.
Not any more, that was a few centurys ago.
Greetings,
Lucas B. Kruijswijk lbk...@cs.vu.nl
tre...@trevan.uucp
>True, but you're only mentioning the things you see. What about the
>costs of the 2 or 3 staff that work on UKnet all the time? What about
>the dedicated machine that UKC provide for uucp dialup? What about the
>other machine that's dedicated to handling the mail? What about the
>costs of running these computers? You don't see these things, but they
>have to be paid for and without them there would be no net.
I do understand this but the reason we need so much resources is because
the is an awfull lot of traffic. All I am saying is that we should be all
pay according the amount of trafic we generate. This would also encourage
people to use the resource more efficiently.
>[As for costs, you claim below that BT charge ISDN at 80p/Kbyte and
>seem to suggest that this is reasonable.
Sorry it should be 80p/Mbyte. This will make it more economic to have
my own direct 64k line to the States to get both news and mail. My
problem at the moment is finding a USA site with ISDN.
Infact if the promises of ISDN do come true all this hot air about charges
will become irrelavent. Already some BBS systems in this country are
offering international mail free. I would predict that news and mail
will become free within the next two years.
--
regards trevor
tre...@trevan.co.uk
QQ...@liverpool.ac.uk
>
...
>> * Links to the rest of the world would be needed - this might be
of decisions. The Government via the DES (and others) funds JANET, the JNT
(and others) implement the policy. _They_ might not 'approve'.
>
...
>The Universities are now becoming more dependent on the Industry for its
>cash. I would not of thought it would be very productive to alianate the
>any part of that Industry.
>
>Network interconnectivity would be a very effective way to enhance
>that relationship.
See the above comments.
>
Alan Thew
University of Liverpool Computer Laboratory
Bitnet/Earn: QQ...@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK or QQ11%UK.AC.LIVERPOOL @ UKACRL
UUCP : ....!mcsun!ukc!liv!qq11 Voice: +44 51 794 3735
Internet : QQ...@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK or QQ11%LIVERPOOL.AC.UK @ NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK
Alberto Poblacion
>Other people use Holland instead of the Netherlands.
>Translation of someone from the Netherlands in Polish: HOLENDERSKI.
>Also the correct translation of The Netherlands in Spain is very unusual.
In Spanish, we say "Paises Bajos" for Netherlands (that means "The low
countries", probably because part of the Netherlands is below the sea level.)
The same thing happens in French ("Pays Bas" (sp?)).
We also say "Holanda" for "Holland".
--
Alberto Poblacion
Proa - Compugraf,S.A. -- MADRID
Net: alb...@proa.es
Tel: +34 1 254 1407
Adri Verhoef
>>Yes, we people from the Netherlands use Holland. Especially in
>>international communication.
>Other people use Holland instead of the Netherlands.
Pardon?
People from Holland, who speak Dutch, live in the Netherlands. :-)
BTW. I prefer "The Netherlands", since we do live in `Nederland', don't we?
Can you say: "Ik woon in Holland"?
Does it sound the same to you as "Ik woon in Nederland"?
To me, it doesn't. Therefore, I prefer `The Netherlands' or `Nederland'.
Tot ziens!