🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: kw.uucp
Article #22

Re: kw-archive, redundant interconnectivity

#22
From: Geoffrey Welsh
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:58
46 lines
2643 bytes
> No, it's always a struggle to scratch up enough cash for the
> hardware and connectivity you need.
> [...]
> Private individuals usually need less, consume less, contribute
> less, and can afford less.

   While this is certainly true, the fact remains that the low-end 
connectivity world is driven by the WANT of the public, not the NEED of 
companies such as Xenitec.  Unfortunately, the cost of IP keeps it firmly out 
of reach of those who want, rather than need, IP facilities.  The result is 
that things like Canada Remote Services and FidoNet spring up, and dialup UUCP 
operators worry about whether they can afford to continue when ONet stops 
giving them a free ride. <grin>

> > While I didn't explicitly say this, the "Publically available" implied 
> > "publically affordable" :-) Not too many of us could afford $50 / month 
> > plus $6 / hr with a $600 / month max  plus telco line charges for an IP 
> > link. 

   Hmm, isn't the monthly maximum lower for dialup IP ($400), and the use of 
a PSTN line for local calls in K-W about $12/month?

> Sorry, I didn't see that implicit.  Of course, now that you mention
> it, I'm not aware of any reason why an organization such as KWUUG
> couldn't buy an IP connection as a group and divvy up both the
> bandwidth and cost in some proportionate manner.

   You've answered that question yourself:

> Translation:  somebody has to put in an IP capable box, os, and
> appropriate phone lines and modems.  [...]  This is still an
> expense both in terms of acquisition and maintenance.  The former
> requires "up-front" money, and the latter could be handled by some
> suitably qualified and dedicated volunteers.  (No, not myself!)

> IP is nice if you can swing the cost and the time to keep things
> working nicely.  Can KWUUG do this (in aggregate) and does "it"
> want to?  This is not a trivial adventure, although the payoff
> is rather wonderful.

   Isn't this what this discussion is about?

Geoffrey Welsh, 7 Strath Humber Court, Islington, Ontario, M9A 4C8 Canada
geoff@zswamp.uucp, [xenitec.on.ca|m2xenix.psg.com]!zswamp!geoff (416)258-8467
         Coincidentally, most people who fight for "fairness" would be
         significantly better off under the system they call "fair"...
Technical Details
Message-ID: <wJJTRB13w165w@zswamp.UUCP>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!uunet.ca!xenitec!zswamp!geoff
References: <9209230019.aa00724@xenitec.xenitec.on.ca>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!uunet.ca!xenitec!zswamp!geoff
From: geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: kw.uucp
Subject: Re: kw-archive, redundant interconnectivity
Message-ID: <wJJTRB13w165w@zswamp.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 11:58:19 EDT
References: <9209230019.aa00724@xenitec.xenitec.on.ca>
Organization: Izot's Swamp
Lines: 46