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