Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!ka From: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) Newsgroups: net.news.stargate Subject: Re: Stargate Deployment: possibilities Message-ID: <1021@hou3c.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Feb-85 00:51:45 EST Article-I.D.: hou3c.1021 Posted: Tue Feb 5 00:51:45 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 03:39:33 EST References: <233@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <1236@eagle.UUCP> <159@dmsd.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 52 > A much cheaper solution with GLOBAL use > to help europe and places south and east would be to use a HAM shortwave > RTTY link. The last time this was discussed, the problem was finding unused frequencies. I understand that restrictions on ham radio frequencies make it impractical to use these frequencies for transmitting USENET. I have stayed out of the Stargate discussion until now because it sounded as though any more criticism of the idea might cause Lauren to abandon the project, and I feel that it has a certain amount of value, as I will explain. Hou3c will probably not attach up to stargate simply because hou3c does not have a cable connection nearby. I suspect many sites on the net are in a similar situation. Thus the scenario of Stargate entirely replacing USENET appears improbable. What may very well happen is that a significant number of sites will leave the net to join Stargate. This will result in a bunch of problems as the net will have to be restructured to bypass the sites that leave, but I expect that this can be worked out. One way to put Stargate in perspective is to consider the plight of the person who doesn't have USENET access provided courtesy of some large corporation. In order to put a home computer on the net, almost certainly have to limit the number of newsgroups received and have only one USENET parter. In short, a home computer will have to be a leaf of the net. And if lots of people want to be- come USENET leaves, we will have to start turning them away. With the Stargate system, on the other hand, all nodes are leaves, and thus machines that can't afford to forward news pose no problems. USENET is nice, but it cannot form the basis of WorldNet because it the philosophy of "every site gets every article" does not permit indefinite growth. Stargate should have many of the advantages of USENET while supporting a larger user community. The alternative to Stargate over the long term appears to be mailing lists trans- ferred over a commercial carrier. My enthusiasm for Stargate was significantly dampenned when I learned that it would not support unmoderated groups. I hope that I never have to rely on the facilities of Stargate. But on the other hand, being limited to moderated groups is better than being limited to *no* groups. There is enough inertia behind the net at this point that predictions of the collapse of the unmoderated groups seem unfounded (although Stargate will cause adjustment problems). The unquestioned benefit of Stargate is not for those of us who are already on USENET, but for those sites that which cannot afford to hook up to the existing USENET but which could afford a connection to Stargate. Kenneth Almquist