🚀 go-pugleaf

Uh, being relatively new to the net, I realize this may be a) a very foolish
question and b) one that has no doubt been debated hotly before, but what
about establishing a UUCP administration center? (and watch the sparks fly 
from this...!)

It seems there are already a number of major figures in the UUCP and Usenet
world. Would it be unrealistic to consider the establishment of a UUCP
"regulatory authority" acting in a purely non-profit fashion?

I am not speaking simply of designating a group of users as "the people
in charge," and imposing upon them an even larger burden of responsibility
on top of their present employment, though this would be one method.

What if an actual physical UUCP or Usenet Incorporated were to be established?
AA number of possibities open up: First, all inter-network messages could be
routed through there. Second, it would certainly provide a means for easing
the excessive Usenet data flow; any site overtaxed by this could, if they
chose, initiate direct communication with the UUCP HQ. UUCP HQ could
use as many disk storage systems as they could find, and as many phone
lines too, and act as a clearinghouse for all the UUCP/Usenet traffic.

If the installation was set up as a non-profit corporation, ough, there
are many, many problems, too. First, of course, is who is going to staff
the place? No-one can work for free, or at least not do that full-time and
eat as well, so there is a big question of salaries and incoming revenue.
Secondly, more money is needed to buy facilities and pay equipment. The
concept rapidly runs into the millions of dollars, and that's just to get
started. Of course since it would be non-profit, the advantage here is to
assess usage charges from the various UUCP/Usenet sites. Unfortunately, this
is really just against the spirit of Usenet, it seems to me, but perhaps
a closer study is needed. After all, if a connection charge of, say, $20 is
made and then $5 weekly use charges, assuming Usenet continues to grow at
its present rate, if there were 50,000 users revenue would be $50,000
a week. Not too shabby, it seems to me, but I do not have enough experience
with running a large-scale computing center to even guess at the costs, though
the thought of 1,000 or so phone lines makes me shudder, not to mention all
the disks and other hardware needed to get things going.

But still, the advantages seem to me to be pretty powerful. I do not doubt
there would be no lack of people willing to work for Usenet, INC. (I'd die
to be in on this...!). And we've got hundreds of people putting in unpaid
overtime on Usenet ANYWAY. There would be the vantage of having one 
central Usenet site database, so not only would it be easier to track
Usenet usage, but new sites could easily find their nearest neighbor,
and it might be possible to figure out how to better distribute the network
load. Note that not all sites would have to go through Central; all sites
would simply have to pay a registration fee. But this would alleviate
ihnp4's handling of, say, several hundred systems, and vice-versa.

What on earth has this to do with network protocol? Another plust
would be that all Usenet sites would send trans-network mail only
through Usenet CentralCentral could then perform appropriate address
translation and forward to the appropriate net in cooperation with major
gateways. Of course, another big plus would be that "unknown host"
would virtually vanish; if you don't know the path, send it to Central.

Anyway, it was just an idea I had based on all the complaining about
Usenet traffic, addressing foul-ups, nebulous network size, etc. It would
depend totally on the support of the user community; registration and
fee payment would be impossible to force, and sites could always permit
bogus Usenet connections. Public domain accounting records would do nothing
to defray the dismay of a $200 weekly network use bill.

I thought I'd go ahead and display my ignorance for all, though, because
most of you out there are much better equipped to make judgements on this
than me. So flame away at this idea; that's why I wrote it. I am 
no doubt out of touch with reality in this idea, but maybe if there's an
ensuing debate something good will come of it. And this is why we all 
share ideas, is it not?

Cheers,


-- 
Paul "Corwin" Frommeyer        "Experience is no substitute for competence."
UUCP: 
	{seismo,ihnp4}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!corwin