AT&T/Bellsouth removes alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking

For a computer thread follower, and if you've done any IT work in a
government/corporate environment, ya gotta love the following from the Gay
Bay:

http://www.balancednewsblog.com/2008/07/15/sf-officials-locked-out-of-computer-network/

There is talk amongst techies that there is much more to the story than what
is being reported.

Apparently this guy was concerned that idjit, ill trained, IT management
types, coming into the workforce, including the new "chief of network
security", were more than capable of screwing up a perfectly tuned,
_working_, system, so he indeed locked them out to keep them from wreaking
havoc.

To me, the last line indeed tells of a much bigger story ... "The system
continues to operate even though administrators have limited or no access,"

LOL!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Kate" <[email protected]> wrote in news:pjHek.1008$jT6.297
@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

> I saw the same thing yesterday.
> Maybe if we rise up and complain, they will give it back?
>
> I for one am going to raise a fuss.
>
> K.
>

Raise a fuss, complain, and demand a reduction in your bill for the lack
of Usenet service.

If enough people complain, or request the access again, you'll get what
you want or something similar. Take a look at the success of
SaveSURGE.org and VaultKicks.org. Due to the efforts of SaveSURGE.org,
Coca-Cola decided to release a new drink: Vault.

A call to the legal department to ask how the "common carrier" status is
affected probably won't hurt either. Seems by doing this they're no
longer acting as a common carrier...

My ISP just completely dropped its "services" and offered replacements by
Google in February. So technically they still provide "Usenet access"
via Google Groups. (We all know Google Groups isn't Usenet.)

Puckdropper
--
If you're quiet, your teeth never touch your ankles.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

"mac davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:09:05 -0500, "Kate" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I saw the same thing yesterday.
>Maybe if we rise up and complain, they will give it back?
>
>I for one am going to raise a fuss.
>
>K.
>
IMHO, it's not worth the trouble, Kate...
You've got better things to do with your time than shouting into a deaf
corporate ear..
Do some carving... Go get the Jeep muddy..

--- I just think you're great Mac. Wonderful idea!
But, you know what? When I first moved here I started writing and calling
BellSouth to get DSL into our rural area. I FINALLY went all the way up the
chain of command to the (then) president. He made it happen for me. Really!

I've been using APN for over a year and like it a lot... $2.95 a month and
great
service..
http://www.forteinc.com/apn/index.php

Is your time and stress level worth $36 a year?

---Nope, prolly not. Since the ONLY binary group I subscribed to was the
woodworking group, it might not be worth it either.
Well, occasionally the PSP binary group and some other artsy fartsy place
that I've forgotten the name of.

You're ok Mac, yep, pretty much ok... you being a fella and all. ;¬D

K




mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Jul 14, 8:55=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:39:14 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jul 14, 6:47=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> On Jul 14, 11:51 am, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > Just like Verizon... =A0I, as well as many others, predicted this.
>
> >> Didn't have to be Nostradamus to see that one coming. =A0None of those
> >> peckerwood providers care about the kid porn or any other kind of
> >> porn.
>
> >Welcome to The Nanny State.
>
> Yeah. =A0We could be like the Dutch, who allow child porn to proliferate
> as though it were the most normal thing in the world.

Yes, you could be. You're not like the Dutch.
And what-the-fuck does that have to do with killing off
alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking?

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:09:05 -0500, "Kate" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I saw the same thing yesterday.
>Maybe if we rise up and complain, they will give it back?
>
>I for one am going to raise a fuss.
>
>K.
>
IMHO, it's not worth the trouble, Kate...
You've got better things to do with your time than shouting into a deaf
corporate ear..
Do some carving... Go get the Jeep muddy..

I've been using APN for over a year and like it a lot... $2.95 a month and great
service..
http://www.forteinc.com/apn/index.php

Is your time and stress level worth $36 a year?


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

<[email protected]> wrote in message
> > My ISP doesn't provide ANY newsgroups, so I went with APN last year on
their 90
> > day trial and switched to the paid plan within a few weeks to get more
gigs..
> > YMWV
>
> Mac- what is APN?

Agent Premium News. As well as the other attributes mentioned about them,
they have a much greater downloading speed. I usually get about
1000kb/second downloading speed. Much better than the >250k offered by most
others even though they say it's higher.

Jack Stein wrote:

> Han wrote:
>
>> Still, I do not expect Verizon to keep usenet all that much longer,
>> especially not if I have underestimated the manpower required.
>
> Do you expect Comcast to drop multiple email accounts, free web space,
> free Usenet, and a bunch of other crap that many people don't know about
> or care about? If Verizon drops enough services, Comcast will kick
> their ass when time comes to sell their wares. While some here may
> think it doesn't matter, I think it matters a great deal if Kate and
> others unhappy with something their ISP is doing pisses them off. I can
> assure you that by not complaining or caring, nothing good will happen.
>
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6579392.html

Hate to break it to you, but.... Comcast is on the list too. Whether they
just drop alt.binaries.* or the whole shebang is up in the air, but I bet
you will lose something.

--
Froz...

On Jul 17, 10:32 am, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:

> My ISP doesn't provide ANY newsgroups, so I went with APN last year on their 90
> day trial and switched to the paid plan within a few weeks to get more gigs..
> YMWV

Mac- what is APN?

Robert

On Jul 14, 11:08=A0am, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
> Kate wrote:
> > I saw the same thing yesterday.
> > Maybe if we rise up and complain, they will give it back?
>
> > I for one am going to raise a fuss.
>
> Why bother? =A0I pay $8 a month to GigaNews for way more capacity than I'=
ll ever
> use. =A0It supplies me with more binary newsgroups than you can shake a s=
tick at
> (although ABPW is the only one I follow). =A0More importantly, it relieve=
s me of
> having to deal with the morons at Road Runner when it comes to Usenet; so=
mething
> that used to be a constant source of irritation.
>
> My ISP provides good connectivity with the internet and my email service =
is
> reliable but they were clueless when it came to Usenet. =A0With GigaNews,=
that's
> their only business. =A0They have to run it competently or disappear.
>
> There are plenty of others out their who would be glad to get your busine=
ss.
> Adding a news server to Outlook Express only takes a minute to set up. =
=A0You can
> even keep the old account on AT&T active at the same time if you want.
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

www.fortein.com at $2.95 gives you 67,000 newsgroups. INCLUDING
alt.binaries.pictures.nude-in-a-tree.beaten. by- rubber-hose.bi-racial!

On Jul 17, 4:43 pm, Vincent <[email protected]> wrote:

<SNIP> of great info!

> Most of the dedicated newsgroup providers have a trial period, so you can try
> them for free before buying a membership.
>
> I'd recommend trialing a few, and comparing their features & prices to find the
> one that's best for you. I had to learn through trial & error that not all
> newsgroup providers are the same, so I hope the info is helpful.
>

Wow! Thanks for the good information, Vincent. I appreciate you
taking the time to get it all down in writing and supplying a link. I
have been a newsgroup participant for over 10 years now, and it has
changed a lot. I still remember a group of us trying to figure how
one could upload "binaries" to a newsgroup many years ago.

We all used "deja news", and we couldn't!

As I have posted many times before, I am now using Google groups and
it works great. NO binaries, but hey, for 0.00 you don't get
everything. And since it has YEARS of retention, not days, you can
use these groups for their highest and best use - their archives.
Google groups/search creams everyone else on this.

There used to be some binary replayer services around, but I think
they are almost all gone now as well. I am thinking that there will
be a time in the future where newsgroups will be considered such a
special interest item that if you don't have access beyond your ISP
you won't have any at all.

I think the good news is that I didn't realize that ng access has
gotten as cheap as it has. Unlike some, my DSL service was supposed
to include ng acess, but me and the Phillipino tech support never got
it to work. After about 5 - 6 tries, I gave up and that's when I went
to GG.

Again, thanks for the heads up.

Robert

On Jul 14, 8:52 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes, you could be. You're not like the Dutch.
> And what-the-fuck does that have to do with killing off
> alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking?

Careful, Rob. I just heard the lure hit the water.

This is his *second* post to the usenet, so it isn't like he is a
regular denizen. Probably just a toady little midget that lives under
a bridge.

He got you on the marble countertop biz too, eh?

The countertop remark (his first post) was a little close to home. If
I was you, I wouldn't have let it pass either.

Robert

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:59:55 -0400, Maxwell Lol <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jack Stein <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> So are you saying Comcast and Verizon will drop Usenet because they
>> can't afford the storage?
>
>Don't forget the labor and maintenance.
>Anything they can do yo save pennies.

Exactly... losing a few customers by dropping usenet, and effectively getting a
small increase in profit by volume, would seem to me better than raising the
monthly fees of ALL subscribers and watching many of them quit..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:59:43 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jul 17, 10:32 am, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My ISP doesn't provide ANY newsgroups, so I went with APN last year on their 90
>> day trial and switched to the paid plan within a few weeks to get more gigs..
>> YMWV
>
>Mac- what is APN?
>
>Robert

http://www.forteinc.com/apn/index.php

I recommend it.. lots of really nice features, especially the email notification
thing..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Smaug Ichorfang wrote:

> I've got a computer to write letters with, a phone to make calls
> with, and nothing but free time on my hands to put them to use!

I had my eye on the new iPhone. I liked the feature set - especially the
GSM capability - but don't think I want it from AT&T. Oh, well.

I'd already started work on a server bump that would return a "Not
Authorized" explanation and status to requestors from one of the
anti-usenet providers. My little web site isn't much, but I'm hoping to
promote a bit of dissatisfaction among their customer base.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Kate wrote:
> I saw the same thing yesterday.
> Maybe if we rise up and complain, they will give it back?
>
> I for one am going to raise a fuss.


Why bother? I pay $8 a month to GigaNews for way more capacity than I'll
ever
use.

-----
Because $8.00 is two gallons of fuel for my Jeep...
This means 20 miles of offroad FUN playing on the rocks and in the mud.
Add up a few months, and it's an entire weekend of fun up at Superlift or
another great place. That's why!

--
Kate
_oooo_
/l ,[____],
l-L -OlllllllO-
()_)-()_)--)_)

The shortest distance between two points,
is a lot more fun in a Jeep!

Verizon now restricts usenet to what they call the big 8 classes of groups.

Time Warner as well.

I also saw Comcast is testing selling their service down in Texas by
download amounts.

They have taken out the porn of course but also music movies and other high
bandwidth usage.

They have also said in their terms that accessing the binaries and other
than the big 8 using a news service, violates their terms of use.

Regardless of what they say, it is all about preserving bandwidth.

They have taken school newsgroups, software company support groups such as
Adobe and a multitude of others.

You can bet that once they find a way to contol it, and charge for it, they
will be back.

To echo your question, do the rules of this group preclude posting of pix
here? Anybody?






"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> After many years of use my ISP have removed all alt.binaries
> newsgroups. When I try to access alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking I
> get an error. AT&T says it is doing this due to child porn, but I
> have never seen child porn in ABPW. I guess other ISPs may be doing
> the same. So how will this group easily share pictures? Is Usenet
> changing or deteriorating?

on 7/15/2008 9:11 PM Kate said the following:
> ME TOO!
> You go Keith! Kick some ISP butt!
>
> K.
>
> "Keith nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Kate wrote:
>
>> I saw the same thing yesterday.
>> Maybe if we rise up and complain, they will give it back?
>>
>> I for one am going to raise a fuss.
>>
>> K.
>>
>> "Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> After many years of use my ISP have removed all alt.binaries
>> newsgroups. When I try to access alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking I
>> get an error. AT&T says it is doing this due to child porn, but I
>> have never seen child porn in ABPW. I guess other ISPs may be doing
>> the same. So how will this group easily share pictures? Is Usenet
>> changing or deteriorating?
>>
>>
>>
>
> There are 8 responses to the original reply. One of the forums that I
> visits, of a very regional nature, list the number of times a message is
> viewed. It is not uncommon to have on message viewed 20 to 50 times.
>
> What is my point, will if everyone who posted a response had sent a
> complaint to their IPS, that would have been a between 160 to 400
> complaints. Since this newsgroup has significantly larger following,
> each message is probably viewed many more times. I am sure that if the
> all viewers of alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking sent a complaint to
> their IPS there would be at a minimum several thousand complaints
> registered, enough to shut down their complaint system and get their
> attention. I have already sent mine

One of the problems of allowing just one alt.binaries.pictures group is
that the porn posters and readers of the blocked groups would flood that
one group with their messages and pictures.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Jul 14, 11:51 am, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:

> Just like Verizon... I, as well as many others, predicted this.

Didn't have to be Nostradamus to see that one coming. None of those
peckerwood providers care about the kid porn or any other kind of
porn.

This is well beyond simply hypocrisy, it is so stupid it is a joke.
Three or four years ago, it was revealed that the major sources of
internet profit for carriers were porn sites. Across the board, all
providers cited porn sites as their number one user/carrier/profit
generator.

I remember reading last year that (rather excitedly) an internet study
group found that porn generated only 50% of the revenue the carriers
enjoy. That's domestic use. It is well know that most of the
nastiest, perverted, sick porn comes from overseas. There are no
comprehensive tracking devices in use domestically for anything other
than actual minutes used, not sites visited.

So anytime you want kiddie porn, now you just have to use pay sites
like you would if you were going to Amazon, many of which are set up
to access US networks and servers, allowing the ISPs to charge you AND
them for access and usage.

Let's face it; no matter where you are, one of the big three own the
lines, the broadband signal, and in many cases the equipment you are
using. Are these self righteous toadies so interested in blocking
porn that they will give up all the porn webpages, all the porn
hosting sites that use their bandwidth, and all the erotic toy sites
that are on their system?

I think not.

This has never, ever, been anything other than giving less service and
product for the same price.

> Give it time, all the corporate carriers will drop alt.binaries groups.
> The remaining traffic will probably make it barely worth following.

I hope not. There is a lot of good from this community, but I also
like the woodturning and the barbecue (hey... I'm a Texan - what did
you expect?) groups as well.

I have used Google groups for about 3-4 years now, and it works
great. I switched to AT&T, and while NGs were included in the
package, it never, ever worked right. Never. Hours on tech support
with people anywhere from St. Louis to the Philippines were never able
to get it right.

Then I read an article in PC World about Google revamping the old Deja
News archives and format, tried them out and have used them ever
since. It is free, it took 5 minutes to set up, and they retain
messages as long as years and years. In three years, it has gone down
twice.

You don't get binaries, but to me that is what the 200 or so free
picture posting sites are for. I rarely see anyone asking for
pictures around here, anyway.

IMO, if anyone is interested at all, there is no reason to abandon any
NG they are interested in.

Robert

Jack Stein <[email protected]> writes:

> Hate to break it to you, but if you are right, and all the big
> providers drop all binary groups, then binary groups will disappear
> completely regardless of who you get them from. Not only because the
> big ISP's don't carry them, but because as soon as some freak dumps
> porn on one of them, they will likely ban using that carrier on their
> servers as well.

The binaries will always be available. All it takes is a few USENET
providors who are willing to charge extra for this service (which
there are) and people who are willing to pay for them (which there are).

Jack Stein <[email protected]> writes:

> So are you saying Comcast and Verizon will drop Usenet because they
> can't afford the storage?

Don't forget the labor and maintenance.
Anything they can do yo save pennies.

Jack Stein <[email protected]> writes:

> Han wrote:
>
>> Still, I do not expect Verizon to keep usenet all that much longer,
>> especially not if I have underestimated the manpower required.
>
> Do you expect Comcast to drop multiple email accounts, free web space,
> free Usenet, and a bunch of other crap that many people don't know
> about or care about?

Multiple email accounts costs nearly nothing, once you support 1 or 2
per user. USENET is a significant investment.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:vBwfk.394$kf4.370@trnddc03...
>
> "Lowell Holmes" wrote:
>
>> I'm ready to give Verizon the heave-ho, but Comcast is my only option.
>
> SFWIW, signed up with Verizon in 2008/04.
>
> So far, so good.
>
> Tech service is much better than Earthlink was.
>
> Lew
>
>
I've had Verizon for three years and each year the service determinates and
the technicians in India can only follow the script. They have told me
things I know are not true, for instance, one said that Internet Explorer
had to be running for Outlook Express to run. I have major connectivity
problems.

On Jul 14, 6:47=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 11:51 am, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Just like Verizon... =A0I, as well as many others, predicted this.
>
> Didn't have to be Nostradamus to see that one coming. =A0None of those
> peckerwood providers care about the kid porn or any other kind of
> porn.
>

Welcome to The Nanny State.

On Jul 15, 2:20=A0am, "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>
> > He got you on the marble countertop biz too, eh?
>
> > The countertop remark (his first post) was a little close to home. =A0I=
f
> > I was you, I wouldn't have let it pass either.
>
> Actually I was thinking of baiting Robatoy with a fake balsa wood counter=
top
> story. =A0Except he would probably get very interested in it.
>
> On account that it would be the one countertop he could install that
> absolutely would NOT give him a hernia.

LOL... That reminds me of a customer who made a countertop out of MDF
for the laundry room. He laminated it, but didn't bother with a
balance sheet on the bottom. Now he can use it outside to receive
satellite signals. The dishing actually ripped the screws right off
the cleats.

Balsa, eh? That'll protect the edge on a meat-cleaver nicely, wot?

Besides, *my* hernia? Talk to my guys about hernias. Every time I walk
in from my office into the shop and announce that I sold another
Quartz job, they reach for their groins. <G> At about 25 pounds per
square foot, that stuff is a lot of fun.... especially if you have to
lift a 10-footer high enough to clear the sink-cabinet with a sink
hanging from the bottom.

r---> who thinks quartz is a young man's game.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:22:46 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>
>So are you saying Comcast and Verizon will drop Usenet because they
>can't afford the storage?
<snip>

My take is that affording it is not the issue, but return on investment/labor..

When I'm in a group of folks talking about "news groups", they all think I'm
talking about browser based "forums"...
I doubt that a very large percentage of ISP customers even KNOW that Usenet even
exists..

If I ran an ISP, I'd look at what it costs in equipment/labor/support/etc. and
probably drop it or, as Comcast did, farm it out..


mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

I wouldn't be surprised if the ISP's colluded and, in exchange for
campaign contributions past or future, suggested that the politicians
make this request.
Art

"dadiOH" wrote
> No, it is just ISPs using Mario Cuomo's request as a reason to save money
> under the guise of protecting the kiddies. Big Brother is alive and well.
>

Han wrote:
>
> Yes, the next shoe dropped. Verizon is eliminating the New York usenet
> servers. Someone was wondering whether Andy Cuomo knew his actions were
> going to cost NY jobs ...

One? Two?

Kate wrote:
> I saw the same thing yesterday.
> Maybe if we rise up and complain, they will give it back?
>
> I for one am going to raise a fuss.


Why bother? I pay $8 a month to GigaNews for way more capacity than I'll ever
use. It supplies me with more binary newsgroups than you can shake a stick at
(although ABPW is the only one I follow). More importantly, it relieves me of
having to deal with the morons at Road Runner when it comes to Usenet; something
that used to be a constant source of irritation.

My ISP provides good connectivity with the internet and my email service is
reliable but they were clueless when it came to Usenet. With GigaNews, that's
their only business. They have to run it competently or disappear.

There are plenty of others out their who would be glad to get your business.
Adding a news server to Outlook Express only takes a minute to set up. You can
even keep the old account on AT&T active at the same time if you want.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

"dadiOH" wrote

> Jay R wrote:
>> To echo your question, do the rules of this group preclude posting of
>> pix here? Anybody?
>
> The group is unmoderated; therefore, there are no rules but binaries in
> any form are not appropriate for text newsgroups such as this. Why?
> Because they require large amounts of server storage; consequently, there
> is less room for text messages. Less room = less retention.
>
Plus the fact that many ISP's filter out any binaries. Again, because of
the bandwidth problem outlined above.

Phisherman wrote:
> After many years of use my ISP have removed all alt.binaries
> newsgroups. When I try to access alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking I
> get an error. AT&T says it is doing this due to child porn, but I
> have never seen child porn in ABPW. I guess other ISPs may be doing
> the same. So how will this group easily share pictures?

The group isn't gone, merely access to it via your ISP and some others. In
order to access all groups go buy some time at http://usenet-news.net/ or
other commercial usenet server. I spent $10, should last several years.

> Is Usenet
> changing or deteriorating?

No, it is just ISPs using Mario Cuomo's request as a reason to save money
under the guise of protecting the kiddies. Big Brother is alive and well.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

"Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Upscale wrote:
>>
>>> Hell, if they get some sort of satisfaction by railing at the ISPs, then
>>> I
>>> say 'Go For It' although it's a complete waste of time in my opinion.
>>
>>> Me? I prefer to get my satisfaction, as small as that may be, by taking
>>> my
>>> business elsewhere.
>
> That's not practical for everybody either; certainly not for me. I
> just gave COMCAST the heave-ho early this year and am not anxious to rip
> out my DSL just yet.
>
> Dave in Houston
I'm ready to give Verizon the heave-ho, but Comcast is my only option.

"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Upscale wrote:
>
>> Hell, if they get some sort of satisfaction by railing at the ISPs, then
>> I
>> say 'Go For It' although it's a complete waste of time in my opinion.
>
>> Me? I prefer to get my satisfaction, as small as that may be, by taking
>> my
>> business elsewhere.

That's not practical for everybody either; certainly not for me. I just
gave COMCAST the heave-ho early this year and am not anxious to rip out my
DSL just yet.

Dave in Houston

FrozenNorth wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>> Still, I do not expect Verizon to keep usenet all that much longer,
>>> especially not if I have underestimated the manpower required.

>> Do you expect Comcast to drop multiple email accounts, free web space,
>> free Usenet, and a bunch of other crap that many people don't know about
>> or care about? If Verizon drops enough services, Comcast will kick
>> their ass when time comes to sell their wares. While some here may
>> think it doesn't matter, I think it matters a great deal if Kate and
>> others unhappy with something their ISP is doing pisses them off. I can
>> assure you that by not complaining or caring, nothing good will happen.
>>
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6579392.html
>
> Hate to break it to you, but.... Comcast is on the list too. Whether they
> just drop alt.binaries.* or the whole shebang is up in the air, but I bet
> you will lose something.

Hate to break it to you, but if you are right, and all the big providers
drop all binary groups, then binary groups will disappear completely
regardless of who you get them from. Not only because the big ISP's
don't carry them, but because as soon as some freak dumps porn on one of
them, they will likely ban using that carrier on their servers as well.

It's possible but not likely Comcast will drop Usenet, perhaps binary
groups simply because it's easy to eliminate porn by doing that. My
point however is that Comcast is not dropping anything because of the
expense of providing space or transmission of binary groups.

Thanks for the link however, it was a good read. Sounds to me like the
porn sources will be zapped,particularly web sites, not particularly
binary groups. For example, Alt binary photo's original has thousands
of great photographs or our own APBWoodworking. That really would be a
crime if it disappeared. But, like I said, anyone that likes binary
groups is likely to lose if the big carriers drop and plonk anything
that smells of porn. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me that ONLY porn
would be posted to these sites as the freaks would be doing it just to
show they can, and the normal people would be gone.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Phisherman wrote:
> After many years of use my ISP have removed all alt.binaries
> newsgroups. When I try to access alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking I
> get an error. AT&T says it is doing this due to child porn, but I
> have never seen child porn in ABPW.

Just like Verizon... I, as well as many others, predicted this.

Give it time, all the corporate carriers will drop alt.binaries groups.
The remaining traffic will probably make it barely worth following.

I can just imagine how the storage and transport requirements for Usenet
carriers will plummet without alt.binaries, so it's a politically
correct no-brainer for the corporate types to take advantage of an
opportunity to ditch them.

Jack Stein wrote:
>
>
> Considering Usenet has many, many 10's of thousands of newsgroups, if
> just ONE person participated in each newsgroup, you would have many
> thousands of Usenet users. What adverse affect dropping Usenet would
> have is something I can only speculate about, just as I can only
> speculate what percentage of expenses would go away if they drop usenet
> altogether. Personally, I think Usenet and the independent providers
> that charge a fee would suffer the most, not Comcast or Verizon. I
> guess it's possible only the elite users would go to the trouble to hook
> up and pay extra for Usenet, but I think it would be a net loss rather
> than a gain. I've been wrong before though, so who knows.

Did you ever notice how many of the same folks you see from group to
group? And that's just the ones who don't use a different screen name
on different groups.

Smaug Ichorfang wrote:
> "Kate" <[email protected]> wrote in news:pjHek.1008$jT6.297
> @bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
>> I saw the same thing yesterday.
>> Maybe if we rise up and complain, they will give it back?
>>
>> I for one am going to raise a fuss.
>>
>> K.
>>
> I am as well. I am an ATT subscriber. I just renewed my contract
> last week. There was no mention of this action when I did. This was
> a unilateral action on their part. They substantially changed the
> terms of service without prior notification. By censoring the
> newsgroups for pornography and objectionable contnet, they have now
> lost their immunity under the protection of the Common Carrier
> provision, and as such are legally responsible and liable for ANY
> porn or objectionable material I might run across ANYWHERE on the
> internet. According to their web site, they (claim to) operate under
> Texas law. I just called a Dallas lawyer to see what can be done.
> They want to mess with me, they've chosen a tough enemy. I've got a
> computer to write letters with, a phone to make calls with, and
> nothing but free time on my hands to put them to use!

Tilt away, don Quixote...

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:06:27 -0400, Jack Stein said...
> >
> >Vincent wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:03:18 GMT, Smaug Ichorfang said...
> >>> Vincent <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>> news:[email protected]:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I'd have to think that most newsgroup users get their access through
> >>>> standalone newsgroup services
> >>>>
> >>> What in the world would make you think such a thing? I've been around
> >>> playing with computers since FidoNet days. Since before Timmy Berners-Lee
> >>> discovered html and the WorldWideWeb. Since back in the day when the
> >>> internet was only usenet, mail, and ftp. Then along can AOL and things
> >>> went downhill ever since. **sigh**
> >>
> >> I was referring to the current state of Usenet, and not the pre-Web days.
> >>
> >>Folks still access the newsgroups through their ISPs, they still connect to text
> >> based newsgroups through free resources, but there is definitely a growing
> >> percentage of Usenet users that access through paid newsgroup services.
> >>
> >>Usenet has changed considerably since the late 1980's... more newsgroups, more
> >> content, larger files, etc... and most ISPs & free resources do not want to
> >> invest in the equipment or an outsourcing arrangement to provide an adequate
> >> newsgroup service.
> >
> >I'd bet byte for byte the equipment is far cheaper than it used to be.
> >Heck, I'm sitting here with over 550 GIGS of hard drive storage myself,
> >and I don't have millions of users paying $50/month for service.

I don't remember the numbers, but your 550GB drive is likely enough
for an hour's complete Usenet feed. The amount of data is truly
massive.

> I don't run a newsgroup service, and it's not my area of expertise, so it's just
> speculation on my behalf :)
>
> I'm not aware of any newsgroup services charging $50 month, and most of the
> services I'm familiar with are inexpensive.

One of mine is $8/mo and the other is (now, I've heard,) $16/yr.
It's not a big deal.

> My provider for example (Newsguy) has newsgroup accounts for as little as $3
> month, and I doubt that Newsguy or any of the newsgroup services have millions
> of paying individual customers. If I used your numbers... say 2 million
> customers at $50/month... these newsgroup services would be generating $1.2
> billion dollars a year. I'm sorry, but that seems highly unlikely.

I'd think that would be enough to get the big guys interested. ;-)

> As far as hardware, I dunno. Like any other business I'm sure there are other
> costs that these folks incur... servers, bandwidth, employees, healthcare
> benefits. etc... so as their cost of doing business increases, so do their
> membership fees. I suppose it's the same reason why a loaf of bread no longer
> costs $.25, or cars no longer cost $5,000.

Right. Usenet has always been a loser for the ISPs. It's not
really enough of their business to warrant the expense.

> >As a result people move to dedicated newsgroup providers to
> >> get a better level of service (longer retention, no missing posts, etc.)
> >
> >As it stands, I doubt you could get a better level of service than I get
> >from Comcast which provides Giganews free to their users.
> >
> >> I get my Internet access through Roadrunner. It upsets me that I can't get
> >> Usenet through them, but nowadays it's simply more convenient, reliable &
> >> affordable to get my newsgroups through a dedicated provider like a Newsguy.
> >
> >Around here it costs about the same for Verizon and Comcast, the two
> >large high speed providers. Verizon has fiber, Comcast has cable.
> >About the only difference I can see is Verizon supposedly is dropping
> >all the Alt binaries and Comcast still provides everything free. The
> >way I see it, Comcast has my business as long as they continue to
> >provide more bang for the buck. Dropping binaries is reducing services
> >that I use, and use a lot. Many people don't use any of this, and it's
> >free and right at their fingertips. Many fewer people will use these
> >services if they have to take the initiative in finding a service, and
> >then set it up.
> >
> >I'd like to see Comcast advertise the fact they provide all newsgroups
> >free so people can share photos with the world whilst Verizon, their
> >lame competitor doesn't. Even if people don't know what it is, they
> >would love it because it's about pictures and it's free.
>
> While I hope it's not the case, I have a feeling that ISPs will begin to
> discontinue their newsgroup services in light of the decisions made by
> Roadrunner, Verizon, AT&T, etc.

They will, but as you point out, there are alternatives. I stopped
using my ISP's NNTP service about five years ago. A news
subscription is cheap and the service is much better than what I got
with the ISPs.

--
Keith

Kate wrote:
> I saw the same thing yesterday.
> Maybe if we rise up and complain, they will give it back?
>
> I for one am going to raise a fuss.
>
> K.
>
> "Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> After many years of use my ISP have removed all alt.binaries
> newsgroups. When I try to access alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking I
> get an error. AT&T says it is doing this due to child porn, but I
> have never seen child porn in ABPW. I guess other ISPs may be doing
> the same. So how will this group easily share pictures? Is Usenet
> changing or deteriorating?
>
>

There are 8 responses to the original reply. One of the forums that I
visits, of a very regional nature, list the number of times a message is
viewed. It is not uncommon to have on message viewed 20 to 50 times.

What is my point, will if everyone who posted a response had sent a
complaint to their IPS, that would have been a between 160 to 400
complaints. Since this newsgroup has significantly larger following,
each message is probably viewed many more times. I am sure that if the
all viewers of alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking sent a complaint to
their IPS there would be at a minimum several thousand complaints
registered, enough to shut down their complaint system and get their
attention. I have already sent mine

Maxwell Lol wrote:
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>> Still, I do not expect Verizon to keep usenet all that much longer,
>>> especially not if I have underestimated the manpower required.
>> Do you expect Comcast to drop multiple email accounts, free web space,
>> free Usenet, and a bunch of other crap that many people don't know
>> about or care about?

> Multiple email accounts costs nearly nothing, once you support 1 or 2
> per user. USENET is a significant investment.

Depends on your definition of significant. Consider that both Verizon
and Comcast broadcast 24 hours a day all TV and sound over the same
lines you get the internet, and significant begins to change.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Kate wrote:
>> I saw the same thing yesterday.
>> Maybe if we rise up and complain, they will give it back?
>>
>> I for one am going to raise a fuss.

> Why bother?

Because she is unhappy with the change?

I pay $8 a month to GigaNews for way more capacity than I'll ever
> use.

I pay nothing for the same thing from Comcast. That alone is reason
enough for me to switch from Version to Comcast, if I were a Verison
customer that is. The best way to complain is to switch to a service
that does provides the services you want, and make sure Verizon knows
why you are switching.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

ME TOO!
You go Keith! Kick some ISP butt!

K.

"Keith nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Kate wrote:
> I saw the same thing yesterday.
> Maybe if we rise up and complain, they will give it back?
>
> I for one am going to raise a fuss.
>
> K.
>
> "Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> After many years of use my ISP have removed all alt.binaries
> newsgroups. When I try to access alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking I
> get an error. AT&T says it is doing this due to child porn, but I
> have never seen child porn in ABPW. I guess other ISPs may be doing
> the same. So how will this group easily share pictures? Is Usenet
> changing or deteriorating?
>
>

There are 8 responses to the original reply. One of the forums that I
visits, of a very regional nature, list the number of times a message is
viewed. It is not uncommon to have on message viewed 20 to 50 times.

What is my point, will if everyone who posted a response had sent a
complaint to their IPS, that would have been a between 160 to 400
complaints. Since this newsgroup has significantly larger following,
each message is probably viewed many more times. I am sure that if the
all viewers of alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking sent a complaint to
their IPS there would be at a minimum several thousand complaints
registered, enough to shut down their complaint system and get their
attention. I have already sent mine

Jay R wrote:
> To echo your question, do the rules of this group preclude posting of
> pix here? Anybody?

The group is unmoderated; therefore, there are no rules but binaries in any
form are not appropriate for text newsgroups such as this. Why? Because
they require large amounts of server storage; consequently, there is less
room for text messages. Less room = less retention.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

"Maxwell Lol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> So are you saying Comcast and Verizon will drop Usenet because they
>> can't afford the storage?
>
> Don't forget the labor and maintenance.
> Anything they can do yo save pennies.
This is not the first time they have done this, I dropped them back in the
nineties for the same thing. Changed providers, went to earthlink then Bell
finally came back around. May have to change again...?

"J. Clarke" & Jack Stein both wrote:
<snip>

Sounds like:
My daddy can whip your daddy.

Nah, na nah, na.

Lew

Smaug Ichorfang wrote:

<snipped>

>
> With respect, I disagree. It only costs me a 41 cent stamp*, a sheet of
> paper, and a little time to write a letter of complaint. Even if they're
> paying minimum-wage-slaves to collect my mail and throw it in the trash
> unopened, they are out more money than I am. After a dozen or so of
> these letters, even if they go straight to the trash, they have lost more
> money than they make in profits fom the ISP account. They've already
> violated their contract and TOS. Further actions, such as disconnecting
> my account because I sent them mail complaining of the fact will be
> looked upon poorly by the State Atty. general, and more importsntly by
> the judge in the small claims case I will file next month if this keeps
> up. If someone is interested in taking legal action, I *highly* recomend
> sueing in small claims court. Here in Okla. the client can't be
> represented by an attourney. The filing fee is about $50. It will cost
> ATT more to deal with hundreds of individual cases than it will for a
> single class-action suit.
>

Where did AT&T violate their contract or TOS?

For the AT&T Wordnet "Terms of Service" web page:

"2.1 Modifications to Service. AT&T reserves the right to modify or
discontinue, temporarily or permanently, at any time and from time to
time, the Service (or any function or feature of the Service or any part
thereof, including, but not limited to, rates and charges) with or
without notice. Should the technology become available, AT&T and its
affiliates reserve the right to provision your Service over a different
access technology and may do so without notice if such change(s) will
not negatively impact the speeds for which you signed up or require new
customer premises equipment. Without limiting the foregoing, AT&T may
post, or email, notices of changes in the Service. It is your
responsibility to check our web site and your AT&T email address for any
such notices. You agree that AT&T will not be liable to you or to any
third party for any such modification, suspension or discontinuance of
the Service."

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

J. Clarke wrote:

> To put this in woodworking terms, his proposed use of cheap consumer
> drives to serve up USENET binaries to thousands of users is like
> someone proposing to set up a production line to rip 8/4 lumber by
> chucking a 1/8 inch Rotozip bit in a Dremel.

To put this in human terms any fool can understand, your dancing around
the issue, making stuff up like me proposing to use cheap consumer
drives to serve up USENET binaries is too lame for words.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> After many years of use my ISP have removed all alt.binaries
> newsgroups. When I try to access alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking I
> get an error. AT&T says it is doing this due to child porn, but I
> have never seen child porn in ABPW. I guess other ISPs may be doing
> the same. So how will this group easily share pictures? Is Usenet
> changing or deteriorating?
>
It is due to an overzealous NY attorney General, named Andrew Cuomo. Go
here to see his breast beating PR staff's puke:
<http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2008/july/july10a_08.html>

I paid $10 for 25GB of downloads at astraweb.com to get abpw back (and
other ngs that Andy killed off of Verizon).


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> No, it is just ISPs using Mario Cuomo's request as a reason to save
> money under the guise of protecting the kiddies. Big Brother is alive
> and well.
>

Not Mario, his son Andrew.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Kate" <[email protected]> wrote in news:pjHek.1008$jT6.297
@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

> I saw the same thing yesterday.
> Maybe if we rise up and complain, they will give it back?
>
> I for one am going to raise a fuss.
>
> K.
>
I am as well. I am an ATT subscriber. I just renewed my contract last
week. There was no mention of this action when I did. This was a
unilateral action on their part. They substantially changed the terms of
service without prior notification. By censoring the newsgroups for
pornography and objectionable contnet, they have now lost their immunity
under the protection of the Common Carrier provision, and as such are
legally responsible and liable for ANY porn or objectionable material I
might run across ANYWHERE on the internet. According to their web site,
they (claim to) operate under Texas law. I just called a Dallas lawyer to
see what can be done. They want to mess with me, they've chosen a tough
enemy. I've got a computer to write letters with, a phone to make calls
with, and nothing but free time on my hands to put them to use!


--
sm@ug dot ichorfang
at gmail dot com

Vincent <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


> I'd have to think that most newsgroup users get their access through
> standalone newsgroup services
>
What in the world would make you think such a thing? I've been around
playing with computers since FidoNet days. Since before Timmy Berners-Lee
discovered html and the WorldWideWeb. Since back in the day when the
internet was only usenet, mail, and ftp. Then along can AOL and things
went downhill ever since. **sigh**


--
sm@ug dot ichorfang
at gmail dot com

"dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in news:Lv%ek.125513$t44.97231
@fe105.usenetserver.com:

>
> Tilt away, don Quixote...
>
Saddle up, Pancho!


--
sm@ug dot ichorfang
at gmail dot com

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Smaug Ichorfang" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I am as well. I am an ATT subscriber. I just renewed my contract
>> last week. There was no mention of this action when I did. This was
>> a unilateral action on their part. They substantially changed the
>> terms of service without prior notification.
>
> There's only one thing that can be done to "punish" ISP's, and that's
> to cancel your account. It won't benefit you except for the
> satisfaction of telling them to go screw themselves.

With respect, I disagree. It only costs me a 41 cent stamp*, a sheet of
paper, and a little time to write a letter of complaint. Even if they're
paying minimum-wage-slaves to collect my mail and throw it in the trash
unopened, they are out more money than I am. After a dozen or so of
these letters, even if they go straight to the trash, they have lost more
money than they make in profits fom the ISP account. They've already
violated their contract and TOS. Further actions, such as disconnecting
my account because I sent them mail complaining of the fact will be
looked upon poorly by the State Atty. general, and more importsntly by
the judge in the small claims case I will file next month if this keeps
up. If someone is interested in taking legal action, I *highly* recomend
sueing in small claims court. Here in Okla. the client can't be
represented by an attourney. The filing fee is about $50. It will cost
ATT more to deal with hundreds of individual cases than it will for a
single class-action suit.

*yeah, 41 cents. That's why they were selling ".41 forever" stamps and I
was buying them by the bucketfull.



--
sm@ug dot ichorfang
at gmail dot com

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:zMxfk.345$Cw5.163
@trnddc01:

> Believe it or not I've had good luck with both Verizon and M/S tech
> service from India.
>
> Gave both on line access to puter to resolve problems.
>
> Neither one of those guys were robots, they definitely had their act
> together.
>
> They took control, made changes, and solved problem(s).
>
> It was a pleasure.
>
Well, generally I am satisfied with Verizon support. Better if you don't
need it, but it is OK.

I am NOT satisfied with MS support, at least in my latest endeavor. I
had wanted to follow the advice to install SP1 for Vista Home Basic on
this cheap laptop (Acer), but despite hours and hours and hours, no go.
So I have given up installing SP1. Of course, now I will have to wait
and see whether I can still get all other hotfixes etc. So far, so good.

Of course, that is no real reflection on Support, but on MS design of the
SP1 update, since it is unable to tell me what to do to fix whatever
issue(s) SP1 is having with my 'puter. Unfortunately, the MVPs on the MS
newsgroup are only able to refer to websites outlining what should be
done to prep for SP1, with none of that being helpful so far. Eventually
I might spring for a basic install DVD from Acer, but then my laptop is
getting expensive, not cheap.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

mac davis <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:22:46 -0400, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>So are you saying Comcast and Verizon will drop Usenet because they
>>can't afford the storage?
> <snip>
>
> My take is that affording it is not the issue, but return on
> investment/labor..
>
> When I'm in a group of folks talking about "news groups", they all
> think I'm talking about browser based "forums"...
> I doubt that a very large percentage of ISP customers even KNOW that
> Usenet even exists..
>
> If I ran an ISP, I'd look at what it costs in
> equipment/labor/support/etc. and probably drop it or, as Comcast did,
> farm it out..
>
> mac

Verizon cut way down on their usenet. As I understood it, it was mainly
a one-man job, ossibly only part-time, but that may just show how little
I know about the nuts and bolts of the job. Now with more than 90% of
storage requirements and to 98% of administration eliminated, it almost
certainly is only a one man part-time job.

Still, I do not expect Verizon to keep usenet all that much longer,
especially not if I have underestimated the manpower required.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

mac davis <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:59:55 -0400, Maxwell Lol <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Jack Stein <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> So are you saying Comcast and Verizon will drop Usenet because they
>>> can't afford the storage?
>>
>>Don't forget the labor and maintenance.
>>Anything they can do yo save pennies.
>
> Exactly... losing a few customers by dropping usenet, and effectively
> getting a small increase in profit by volume, would seem to me better
> than raising the monthly fees of ALL subscribers and watching many of
> them quit..
>
>
> mac

Yes, the next shoe dropped. Verizon is eliminating the New York usenet
servers. Someone was wondering whether Andy Cuomo knew his actions were
going to cost NY jobs ...

All you Verizon usenet subscribers, change (if necessary) your usenet
newsserver to news.verizon.net by July 28, or you get an error message.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>
>> Still, I do not expect Verizon to keep usenet all that much longer,
>> especially not if I have underestimated the manpower required.
>
> Do you expect Comcast to drop multiple email accounts, free web space,
> free Usenet, and a bunch of other crap that many people don't know
> about or care about? If Verizon drops enough services, Comcast will
> kick their ass when time comes to sell their wares. While some here
> may think it doesn't matter, I think it matters a great deal if Kate
> and others unhappy with something their ISP is doing pisses them off.
> I can assure you that by not complaining or caring, nothing good will
> happen.
>
Let's see. What Verizon internet services do I use. Their pipe to the
internet. I do still have email accounts with Verizon, but only ones I
don't care about. Oh, yeah, webspace. Shucks, after losing websites at
least twice, no Verizon personal webspace is used anymore. That leaves
usenet, now crippled to the extent I use astraweb for what isn't free on
Verizon, expecting to go totally off Verizon by 2010, because Verizon
won't offer it anymore.

Cablevision/Optimum would be the alternative here in 07410 I think, but
I really hated their costly TV service when I had it, and I don't like
their owners. So I'll stick with Verizon phone, TV and internet for
now. --
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Upscale wrote:

> Hell, if they get some sort of satisfaction by railing at the ISPs, then I
> say 'Go For It' although it's a complete waste of time in my opinion.

> Me? I prefer to get my satisfaction, as small as that may be, by taking my
> business elsewhere.

Talking your business elsewhere is the highest form of "railing at the
ISP's", as long as they know WHY you are taking your business elsewhere.
There is stiff competition for your ISP dollar, and every complaint
they get is worth WAY more than one complaint (most people don't
complain even when unhappy) and every lost customer is scary to a
business in stiff competition. The big fear is all the big carriers
stop providing the service you want, so there is no where "else" to take
your business.

The other fear is that Usenet, which is completely dependent on usage,
will lose enough users to become useless. This is what happened to
Fidonet, but at least Fidonet was replaced for better or worse by
Usenet, ie, technological improvement rather than a business decision.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

>> Vincent wrote:

>>> Usenet has changed considerably since the late 1980's... more newsgroups, more
>>> content, larger files, etc... and most ISPs & free resources do not want to
>>> invest in the equipment or an outsourcing arrangement to provide an adequate
>>> newsgroup service.

> Jack Stein said...
>> I'd bet byte for byte the equipment is far cheaper than it used to be.
>> Heck, I'm sitting here with over 550 GIGS of hard drive storage myself,
>> and I don't have millions of users paying $50/month for service.
>

> Vincent wrote:
> I'm not aware of any newsgroup services charging $50 month, and most of the
> services I'm familiar with are inexpensive.

COMCAST is an ISP, and you think most ISP's do not wish to invest in the
equipment to provide adequate newsgroup service. Comcast charges around
$50 a month for their high speed service, the newsgroups are provided
free to all subscribers. There is no monthly fee at all and the service
provided is via Giganews. Comcast has their own servers for this free
service, and that extra equipment has become extremely cheap to a
company like Comcast that has millions of customers.

> My provider for example (Newsguy) has newsgroup accounts for as little as $3
> month, and I doubt that Newsguy or any of the newsgroup services have millions
> of paying individual customers.

No,but Giganews probably does, considering Comcast is likely their
principle customer.

If I used your numbers... say 2 million
> customers at $50/month... these newsgroup services would be generating $1.2
> billion dollars a year. I'm sorry, but that seems highly unlikely.

Yes, but you and I were talking ISP's, not just the newsgroup companies
like Giganews. I have no idea what small part of the ISP fees Comcast
pays to Giganews, but my guess is it is a very, very, very small
percentage of the fees charged to their customers.

> As far as hardware, I dunno. Like any other business I'm sure there are other
> costs that these folks incur... servers, bandwidth, employees, healthcare
> benefits. etc... so as their cost of doing business increases, so do their
> membership fees. I suppose it's the same reason why a loaf of bread no longer
> costs $.25, or cars no longer cost $5,000.

I get your point but many things, particularly computer hardware and all
the stuff needed to provide storage and bandwidth has gotten far cheaper
over the years, thats why sitting on my cluttered desk I have more
storage space than the whole world had in total just 30 years ago, and
is why megabytes can be downloaded in seconds instead of hours, and why
newsgroups and binary data is no big deal to large providers like
Comcast and Verizon.

>> I'd like to see Comcast advertise the fact they provide all newsgroups
>> free so people can share photos with the world whilst Verizon, their
>> lame competitor doesn't. Even if people don't know what it is, they
>> would love it because it's about pictures and it's free.
>
> While I hope it's not the case, I have a feeling that ISPs will begin to
> discontinue their newsgroup services in light of the decisions made by
> Roadrunner, Verizon, AT&T, etc.

I certainly think if no one really cares, or no one complains which is
the same thing really, then it will go away (the free service) I also
hope if it does, enough people will have the incentive to go out and pay
additional money for binary services, but my first guess is no one, or
few will, and binary groups like ABPW will be history. No big deal I
reckon, of course there won't much reason for Roadrunner to exist
anymore, since the non-binary groups will still be provided free by the
big ISP's

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

J. Clarke wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:

>> So are you saying Comcast and Verizon will drop Usenet because they
>> can't afford the storage?
>
> No, because by dropping USENET they can reduce both their
> administrative and hardware support costs with minimal loss of income.

Really? How much does Comcast spend as a percentage of the
administrative and hardware expenses by providing free Usenet access to
all their customers?

>>> Can your PC with 500 GIGABYTES in hard drive storage deliver up
>>> binaries fast enough to satisfy a large number of simultaneous
>>> users?
>> No, but Comcast can, and that is what they sell, and the large
>> graphics transported is the reason high speed providers exist.
>> Storage of Usenet is a non-issue to companies like Verizon and
>> Comcast.
>
> So what is the relevance of your PC? You seem to be laboring under
> the misconception that serving up large volumes of stored binaries is
> just a matter of sticking a consumer drive in a machine.

The relevance has been made clear, but you choose to ignore what you
don't like or doesn't fit in your views. Lets see if I can waste some
time explaining it to you again.

Vincent said:
"Usenet has changed considerably since the late 1980's... more
newsgroups, more content, larger files, etc..."

I said this stuff has gotten much cheaper, you insist on arguing about
that. I mentioned an IBMPCxt cost $4000 with a 10 meg hard drive in the
80's. I replaced that 10 meg hard rive in the 80's for $400, which is
$40 per MEG. My current computer, which cost under $1000 has over 500
GIGS of HD storage. 500 GIGS of storage in the 80's when I bought the
HD at $40 a MEG would have cost lets see ..... $22,000,000, or 22
MILLION dollars. Someone can check my math, but when you are done
laboring over this concept, then you might understand why storage of
huge amounts of information is no big deal to the likes of verizon and
comcast.

>>>>> Usenet has always been a loser for the ISPs.

Numbers please? I doubt even Comcast knows the exact value of Usenet
service to it's subscribers.

It's not
>>>>> really enough of their business to warrant the expense.

How about free web space, is that enough to warrant the expense? How
about 6 free independent email accounts so a family of 6 can all have
their own separate email accounts? If you know all this about Usenet,
then I guess you know the answers to all these Questions...

>>> Don't bet on it. USENET was around long before Verizon or Comcast.

>> Well, Verizon and Comcast was AT&T and they have been around longer
>> than Usenet, but so what?

> Comcast was AT&T? Sorry, but Comcast is a cable television company
> and they have never been a part of AT&T.

AT&T sold there internet service to Comcast. I was at an AT&T address,
next thing you know, I had a Comcast address. Just as Verizon, Bell
south, Southern Bell and some others came from AT&T, so did Comcast.

>>> Why will the independents be dead?
>> Because not enough people will care enough to support them.
>
> Note that there are free servers out there.

Fidonet was mostly free as well, but guess what... dead as a doornail.

>> My guess is Giganews gets a ton more money from Comcast than all the
>> individual subscriptions combined.
>
> When you know for sure get back to us.

It was just a guess. Get back to "us" when you know the value of free
Usenet, free web space, and multiple email accounts to Comcast vs the
expense of providing all that free with your basic Comcast account.

>> They will likely be the first to fall if the
>> big ISP's drop Usenet, and most of the rest will be gone right
>> behind
>> them due to lack of interest. If only Verizon drops all binary
>> groups, their will be a huge dent to the alt binary groups to the
>> point that MOST if not all the binary groups will disappear, even
>> though Comcast still carries them.
>
> This may come as a shock to you but neither Verizon nor Comcast is the
> world.

Nothing shocks me, you must have me confused with someone else. More
over, I don't think I ever suggested Verizon or Comcast is the world.
I do think they are very big providers of internet service in the US.
If you know differently, please let "us" know who the bigger providers
are.

>> Regardless of how it goes, I feel confident storage of Usenet is a
>> non-issue as the price of storage has gone through the floor years
>> ago, and is still falling at an amazing rate.

> Says the guy who has never seen a server farm.

I guess you are saying if I ever saw a server farm, I'd know that the
cost of storage since the 80's has NOT gone through the floor. You
would be wrong at any rate... The cost of storage has gone right through
the floor in just 25 years, to the point it is a non-issue to large
ISP's like Comcast and Verizon as far as Usenet is concerned. That's
why they can offer free web pages, multiple email accounts, and fee
Usenet to all their customers.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

On Jul 15, 1:59=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 8:52 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, you could be. You're not like the Dutch.
> > And what-the-fuck does that have to do with killing off
> > alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking?
>
> Careful, Rob. =A0I just heard the lure hit the water.

My ripple detector didn't go off. Either out of batteries or lack of
interest.

>
> This is his *second* post to the usenet, so it isn't like he is a
> regular denizen. =A0Probably just a toady little midget that lives under
> a bridge.
>

I think he's a regular. I smelled something familiar to the tone and I
did notice a 'direction' to the two posts.

> He got you on the marble countertop biz too, eh?

That one was kinda funny, I thought. Again, a certain 'direction'.

Truth is, marble does suck as a food-preparation product.


r---> who has taken down the scaffolding and has completed this year's
painting vacation. 16 shutters built and hung. The back of the house
waits.
Now I'm going to try my hand at building a pergola without using
nails. Just bird's beaks and pegs and other such timber-type words.
<G> I designed it using a heliograph from my CAD program to test sun
location and shadows cast over the course of the year. I then rendered
it. I stopped the animation at 3 PM yesterday and found the shadow
EXACTLY where my drawing said it would be. Of course, as always, when
I go outside and see my shadow, I go back in the house for another 6
weeks...wait..what?
I am building the pergola at the south side (naturally) and it will
block the sun during the summer and allow the direct sun back in
during the winter.
Angela walked by when I had the picture up on the screen and
immediately proclaimed that it was such a wonderful place to hang
several dozens of plants, ivies and other climbing things. (SO much
for showing off some cool timber joints.)

"Smaug Ichorfang" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I am as well. I am an ATT subscriber. I just renewed my contract last
> week. There was no mention of this action when I did. This was a
> unilateral action on their part. They substantially changed the terms of
> service without prior notification.

There's only one thing that can be done to "punish" ISP's, and that's to
cancel your account. It won't benefit you except for the satisfaction of
telling them to go screw themselves. When Rogers cable decided to eliminate
ALL newgroup access about two years ago without lowering monthly fees, I
called them and cancelled my account completely. I was asked why and told
them. Of course it didn't make a bit of difference to them because they're
too big for anyone at their company to care.

The end result is that I went to a DSL supplier which included all
newsgroups and I'm paying almost $20 less per month for my service. Of
course, there are people who have very little choice with who they subscribe
to, but fortunately where I live means that I've got dozens of choices.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> York who give a damn about that particular newsgroup? And what makes
> you think that "several thousand complaints registered" will "shut
> down their complaint system"? They just go into the inbox to be
> handled in the order recieved.

Hell, if they get some sort of satisfaction by railing at the ISPs, then I
say 'Go For It' although it's a complete waste of time in my opinion.

Me? I prefer to get my satisfaction, as small as that may be, by taking my
business elsewhere.

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message

> Why bother? I pay $8 a month to GigaNews for way more capacity than I'll
> ever use. It supplies me with more binary newsgroups than you can shake a
> stick at

On the Giganews site, they are offering a 20 to 50 percent off the first
month for
AT&T, Time Warner, and Verizon Sprint users.

On Jul 14, 10:35 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:

> www.fortein.comat $2.95 gives you 67,000 newsgroups. INCLUDING
> alt.binaries.pictures.nude-in-a-tree.beaten. by- rubber-hose.bi-racial!

DUDE!! Follow that link! It's hilarious.

Hey... you're not making money by directing us to other sites than we
want now are you???

;^)

Robert

On Jul 14, 6:50=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 10:35 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >www.fortein.comat$2.95 gives you 67,000 newsgroups. INCLUDING
> > alt.binaries.pictures.nude-in-a-tree.beaten. by- rubber-hose.bi-racial!
>
> DUDE!! Follow that link! =A0It's hilarious.
>
> Hey... you're not making money by directing us to other sites than we
> want now are you???
>
> =A0 ;^)
>
> Robert

errrmmmm Oopsies?? http://www.forteinc.com

Haven't read every reply, so apologies if this is a repeat.

Try newsguy.com

Various levels of service/cost, but for ~$9/mon (which I believe they
discount if you subscribe for a whole year) you get access to all the
groups and can download 10G/month .

Had them for years and quite satisfied.

Renata

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:38:03 -0400, Phisherman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>After many years of use my ISP have removed all alt.binaries
>newsgroups. When I try to access alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking I
>get an error. AT&T says it is doing this due to child porn, but I
>have never seen child porn in ABPW. I guess other ISPs may be doing
>the same. So how will this group easily share pictures? Is Usenet
>changing or deteriorating?

J. Clarke wrote:
Jack said:
>> over 500 GIGABYTES in hard drive storage. I can tell you for sure,
>> Comcast can afford enough storage for WEEKS of usenet without
>> blinking an eye. Heck, for FREE google stores years of usenet crap without
>> blinking an eye.

> Actually it's for advertising revenue, not "for free", and they don't
> store binaries.

So are you saying Comcast and Verizon will drop Usenet because they
can't afford the storage?

> Can your PC with 500 GIGABYTES in hard drive storage deliver up
> binaries fast enough to satisfy a large number of simultaneous users?

No, but Comcast can, and that is what they sell, and the large graphics
transported is the reason high speed providers exist. Storage of Usenet
is a non-issue to companies like Verizon and Comcast.

>>> Usenet has always been a loser for the ISPs. It's not
>>> really enough of their business to warrant the expense.

>> Probably true, but do you know how much Comcast will save by
>> dropping the Binary ALT groups from their Giganews contract? Do you even
>> know how much Comcast pays Giganews for there complete service? I don't
>> know either, but I bet if just Verizon and Comcast dropped all newsgroup
>> services, most or ALL of the newsgroup providers would disappear.

> Don't bet on it. USENET was around long before Verizon or Comcast.

Well, Verizon and Comcast was AT&T and they have been around longer than
Usenet, but so what? If the big high speed providers like Verizon and
Comcast drop all the binary groups, the binary groups will be as dead as
Usenet was before Usenet was accessible to the general public.

> Why will the independents be dead?

Because not enough people will care enough to support them. My guess is
Giganews gets a ton more money from Comcast than all the individual
subscriptions combined. They will likely be the first to fall if the
big ISP's drop Usenet, and most of the rest will be gone right behind
them due to lack of interest. If only Verizon drops all binary groups,
their will be a huge dent to the alt binary groups to the point that
MOST if not all the binary groups will disappear, even though Comcast
still carries them.

As it stands, although a very large majority of internet users have
almost instant, free access to the newsgroups, only a very small
percentage take advantage of it. My guess is a significant percentage of
those folks will not go to the bother of actively searching out an
independent provider that they have to send extra money to get the
service. Some will of course, but will that be enough to sustain the
independent providers, or even Usenet itself?

Regardless of how it goes, I feel confident storage of Usenet is a
non-issue as the price of storage has gone through the floor years ago,
and is still falling at an amazing rate.
--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Keith nuttle wrote:

> What is my point, will if everyone who posted a response had sent a
> complaint to their IPS, that would have been a between 160 to 400
> complaints. Since this newsgroup has significantly larger following,
> each message is probably viewed many more times. I am sure that if the
> all viewers of alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking sent a complaint to
> their IPS there would be at a minimum several thousand complaints
> registered, enough to shut down their complaint system and get their
> attention. I have already sent mine
>

I'm sure it would get the ISP's attention but I doubt they would change
their policy.
]
Since anyone with sufficient knowledge can create a news group in the
.alt architecture it is just about impossible to police. Hence the
ISP's are dropping the entire .alt hierarchy.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

Phisherman wrote:
> After many years of use my ISP have removed all alt.binaries
> newsgroups. When I try to access alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking
> I
> get an error. AT&T says it is doing this due to child porn, but I
> have never seen child porn in ABPW. I guess other ISPs may be doing
> the same. So how will this group easily share pictures? Is Usenet
> changing or deteriorating?

Neither--at&t's service is changing--their already crappy USENET
support got crappier--they seized on "child porn" as an excuse to free
up the server space devoted to supporting binaries.

Personally I got a flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/39383723@N00/
account a long time ago for pictures--it's free and once set up it's a
lot more convenient than posting binaries to USENET (in Windows you
right click the image and "send to flickr" or if you've got a lot of
them open the uploader window and drag and drop) and you can view the
images with just about any browser. There are other free photo
hosting services, the best known of which is probably Photobucket. So
far I've been happy with flickr.

For USENET with binaries, http://www.newsguy.com for $7.95 a month is
one option, there are others, again I've been using newsguy for years
mainly because of poor USENET support by ISPs.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article <[email protected]>, Phisherman says...
>
>After many years of use my ISP have removed all alt.binaries
>newsgroups. When I try to access alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking I
>get an error. AT&T says it is doing this due to child porn, but I
>have never seen child porn in ABPW. I guess other ISPs may be doing
>the same. So how will this group easily share pictures? Is Usenet
>changing or deteriorating?

My ISP (Roadrunner) dropped newsgroups also, and I think the larger ISPs are
simply using "child porn" as a convenient reason to eliminate their newsgroup
service and costs. If you buy into their argument, then ISPs should eliminate
POP & SMTP because pedo pervs exchange child porn via email.

I'd have to think that most newsgroup users get their access through standalone
newsgroup services (Newsguy, Giganews, Easynews, etc.) so the groups will still
be the same whether or not AT&T decides to drop their newsgroup access.

I've tried a few outside newsgroup services over the years, and have found
Newsguy to be a good value...

Cost: Newsguy $8 month / Giganews $13 month
Capacity: Newsguy 50 GB / Giganews 25 GB
Connections: Newsguy 32 / Giganews 10
GB Rollover: Newsguy Yes / Giganews No
Free SSL: Newsguy Yes / Giganews No
NNTP & Web Access: Newsguy Yes / Giganews No
Newsgroup Search Engine: Newsguy Yes / Giganews No

Newsguy is also giving away a free month of newsgroup access to AT&T, Roadrunner
& Verizon customers, so they may be worth a look for anyone in need of a
service...

http://newsguy.com/freemonth.htm

Just my $.02 and hope the info is helpful.

- V

In article <[email protected]>, Artemus says...
>
>I wouldn't be surprised if the ISP's colluded and, in exchange for
>campaign contributions past or future, suggested that the politicians
>make this request.
>Art
>
>"dadiOH" wrote
>> No, it is just ISPs using Mario Cuomo's request as a reason to save money
>> under the guise of protecting the kiddies. Big Brother is alive and well.

I think it's very good possibility Artemus, and not as far fetched as some
people would like to believe.

ISPs can't find a way to make money out of the newsgroups, but that wouldn't be
the best reason to provide to their customers when they announce that they're
eliminating newsgroups.

In this scenario Cuomo receives positive press for "ridding" the Internet of
child porn, and the ISPs have a convenient excuse that they can wave in front of
their customer (Verizon, Roadrunner, etc.) when they explain why newsgroups have
been dropped from their membership features.

I gave up on my ISP's (Roadrunner) news servers long ago and got an account with
a standalone newsgroup provider (Newsguy). I suspect that everyone will have to
access the newsgroups that way at some point in the future.

- V

Smaug Ichorfang wrote:
> "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> "Smaug Ichorfang" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> I am as well. I am an ATT subscriber. I just renewed my contract
>>> last week. There was no mention of this action when I did. This
>>> was a unilateral action on their part. They substantially changed
>>> the terms of service without prior notification.
>>
>> There's only one thing that can be done to "punish" ISP's, and
>> that's
>> to cancel your account. It won't benefit you except for the
>> satisfaction of telling them to go screw themselves.
>
> With respect, I disagree. It only costs me a 41 cent stamp*, a
> sheet
> of paper, and a little time to write a letter of complaint. Even if
> they're paying minimum-wage-slaves to collect my mail and throw it
> in
> the trash unopened, they are out more money than I am. After a
> dozen
> or so of these letters, even if they go straight to the trash, they
> have lost more money than they make in profits fom the ISP account.
> Further actions,
> such as disconnecting my account because I sent them mail
> complaining
> of the fact will be looked upon poorly by the State Atty. general,
> and more importsntly by the judge in the small claims case I will
> file next month if this keeps up.
>
> *yeah, 41 cents. That's why they were selling ".41 forever" stamps
> and I was buying them by the bucketfull.

And you and the two other people who want crappy USENET service from
their ISP instead of getting good USENET service from a dedicated
provider are going to bring them to their knees this way. Sure you
are.

Now, now long does it take to read and trash your complaint, about 30
seconds? If they're paying somebody 15 bucks an hour to do this then
that's 12-1/2 cents and they're paying him that anyway, they're not
going to go out and hire people to read complaints about their USENET
service. After a dozen such letters they're out a buck and a half.
How much do they charge for Internet service?

> They've already violated their contract and TOS.

Read the fine print on the contract--if it's typical then they can
modify it at will and your continuing to use the service constitutes
acceptance.

> If someone is interested in taking legal action, I *highly* recomend
> sueing in small claims court. Here
> in Okla. the client can't be represented by an attourney. The
> filing
> fee is about $50. It will cost ATT more to deal with hundreds of
> individual cases than it will for a single class-action suit.

A corporation has to be represented by _somebody_ and you can bet that
regardless of his title that somebody is going to be an experienced
attorney. So you're out 50 bucks, which would have paid for 6 months
of Newsguy, and they're out an anecdote about yet another rube who
thinks that he knows more about contract law than their lawyers do.
Remember, they're paying the guy they send the same when he's kicking
your ass as they do when he's sitting in his office with his feet up
waiting for the next ass to be presented. And this assumes that he
doesn't figure out grounds for a counterclaim and sue you into
oblivion.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Jay R wrote:
> Verizon now restricts usenet to what they call the big 8 classes of
> groups.
>
> Time Warner as well.
>
> I also saw Comcast is testing selling their service down in Texas by
> download amounts.
>
> They have taken out the porn of course but also music movies and
> other high bandwidth usage.
>
> They have also said in their terms that accessing the binaries and
> other than the big 8 using a news service, violates their terms of
> use.

Would you care to quote the part of their terms of service that states
this? I can't find any mention at all of USENET or NNTP in their TOS.

> Regardless of what they say, it is all about preserving bandwidth.
>
> They have taken school newsgroups, software company support groups
> such as Adobe and a multitude of others.
>
> You can bet that once they find a way to contol it, and charge for
> it, they will be back.
>
> To echo your question, do the rules of this group preclude posting
> of
> pix here? Anybody?

The charter I believe indicates that this is a non-binary group. If
you post pictures here you will find that most servers will dump them
down the bit-bucket automatically.

If you want to post pictures, get a free flickr or photobucket or
whatever account and post there with a link.


> "Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> After many years of use my ISP have removed all alt.binaries
>> newsgroups. When I try to access alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking
>> I
>> get an error. AT&T says it is doing this due to child porn, but I
>> have never seen child porn in ABPW. I guess other ISPs may be
>> doing
>> the same. So how will this group easily share pictures? Is
>> Usenet
>> changing or deteriorating?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Kate wrote:
> ME TOO!
> You go Keith! Kick some ISP butt!
>
> K.
>
> "Keith nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> Kate wrote:
>> I saw the same thing yesterday.
>> Maybe if we rise up and complain, they will give it back?
>>
>> I for one am going to raise a fuss.
>>
>> K.
>>
>> "Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> After many years of use my ISP have removed all alt.binaries
>> newsgroups. When I try to access alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking
>> I
>> get an error. AT&T says it is doing this due to child porn, but I
>> have never seen child porn in ABPW. I guess other ISPs may be
>> doing
>> the same. So how will this group easily share pictures? Is
>> Usenet
>> changing or deteriorating?
>>
>>
>
> There are 8 responses to the original reply. One of the forums that
> I
> visits, of a very regional nature, list the number of times a
> message
> is viewed. It is not uncommon to have on message viewed 20 to 50
> times.
>
> What is my point, will if everyone who posted a response had sent a
> complaint to their IPS, that would have been a between 160 to 400
> complaints. Since this newsgroup has significantly larger
> following,
> each message is probably viewed many more times. I am sure that if
> the all viewers of alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking sent a
> complaint
> to their IPS there would be at a minimum several thousand complaints
> registered, enough to shut down their complaint system and get their
> attention. I have already sent mine

Do you really think that there are several thousand subscribers in New
York who give a damn about that particular newsgroup? And what makes
you think that "several thousand complaints registered" will "shut
down their complaint system"? They just go into the inbox to be
handled in the order recieved.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:03:18 GMT, Smaug Ichorfang said...
>
>Vincent <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>
>> I'd have to think that most newsgroup users get their access through
>> standalone newsgroup services
>>
>What in the world would make you think such a thing? I've been around
>playing with computers since FidoNet days. Since before Timmy Berners-Lee
>discovered html and the WorldWideWeb. Since back in the day when the
>internet was only usenet, mail, and ftp. Then along can AOL and things
>went downhill ever since. **sigh**

I was referring to the current state of Usenet, and not the pre-Web days.

Folks still access the newsgroups through their ISPs, they still connect to text
based newsgroups through free resources, but there is definitely a growing
percentage of Usenet users that access through paid newsgroup services.

Usenet has changed considerably since the late 1980's... more newsgroups, more
content, larger files, etc... and most ISPs & free resources do not want to
invest in the equipment or an outsourcing arrangement to provide an adequate
newsgroup service. As a result people move to dedicated newsgroup providers to
get a better level of service (longer retention, no missing posts, etc.)

I get my Internet access through Roadrunner. It upsets me that I can't get
Usenet through them, but nowadays it's simply more convenient, reliable &
affordable to get my newsgroups through a dedicated provider like a Newsguy.

V

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:06:27 -0400, Jack Stein said...
>
>Vincent wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:03:18 GMT, Smaug Ichorfang said...
>>> Vincent <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'd have to think that most newsgroup users get their access through
>>>> standalone newsgroup services
>>>>
>>> What in the world would make you think such a thing? I've been around
>>> playing with computers since FidoNet days. Since before Timmy Berners-Lee
>>> discovered html and the WorldWideWeb. Since back in the day when the
>>> internet was only usenet, mail, and ftp. Then along can AOL and things
>>> went downhill ever since. **sigh**
>>
>> I was referring to the current state of Usenet, and not the pre-Web days.
>>
>>Folks still access the newsgroups through their ISPs, they still connect to text
>> based newsgroups through free resources, but there is definitely a growing
>> percentage of Usenet users that access through paid newsgroup services.
>>
>>Usenet has changed considerably since the late 1980's... more newsgroups, more
>> content, larger files, etc... and most ISPs & free resources do not want to
>> invest in the equipment or an outsourcing arrangement to provide an adequate
>> newsgroup service.
>
>I'd bet byte for byte the equipment is far cheaper than it used to be.
>Heck, I'm sitting here with over 550 GIGS of hard drive storage myself,
>and I don't have millions of users paying $50/month for service.

I don't run a newsgroup service, and it's not my area of expertise, so it's just
speculation on my behalf :)

I'm not aware of any newsgroup services charging $50 month, and most of the
services I'm familiar with are inexpensive.

My provider for example (Newsguy) has newsgroup accounts for as little as $3
month, and I doubt that Newsguy or any of the newsgroup services have millions
of paying individual customers. If I used your numbers... say 2 million
customers at $50/month... these newsgroup services would be generating $1.2
billion dollars a year. I'm sorry, but that seems highly unlikely.

As far as hardware, I dunno. Like any other business I'm sure there are other
costs that these folks incur... servers, bandwidth, employees, healthcare
benefits. etc... so as their cost of doing business increases, so do their
membership fees. I suppose it's the same reason why a loaf of bread no longer
costs $.25, or cars no longer cost $5,000.


>As a result people move to dedicated newsgroup providers to
>> get a better level of service (longer retention, no missing posts, etc.)
>
>As it stands, I doubt you could get a better level of service than I get
>from Comcast which provides Giganews free to their users.
>
>> I get my Internet access through Roadrunner. It upsets me that I can't get
>> Usenet through them, but nowadays it's simply more convenient, reliable &
>> affordable to get my newsgroups through a dedicated provider like a Newsguy.
>
>Around here it costs about the same for Verizon and Comcast, the two
>large high speed providers. Verizon has fiber, Comcast has cable.
>About the only difference I can see is Verizon supposedly is dropping
>all the Alt binaries and Comcast still provides everything free. The
>way I see it, Comcast has my business as long as they continue to
>provide more bang for the buck. Dropping binaries is reducing services
>that I use, and use a lot. Many people don't use any of this, and it's
>free and right at their fingertips. Many fewer people will use these
>services if they have to take the initiative in finding a service, and
>then set it up.
>
>I'd like to see Comcast advertise the fact they provide all newsgroups
>free so people can share photos with the world whilst Verizon, their
>lame competitor doesn't. Even if people don't know what it is, they
>would love it because it's about pictures and it's free.

While I hope it's not the case, I have a feeling that ISPs will begin to
discontinue their newsgroup services in light of the decisions made by
Roadrunner, Verizon, AT&T, etc.

V

In article <[email protected]>, mac davis says...
>
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:45:40 -0400, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Haven't read every reply, so apologies if this is a repeat.
>>
>>Try newsguy.com
>>
>>Various levels of service/cost, but for ~$9/mon (which I believe they
>>discount if you subscribe for a whole year) you get access to all the
>>groups and can download 10G/month .
>>
>>Had them for years and quite satisfied.
>>
>>Renata
>>
>I'm a sort of heavy down loader (music) so I use APN and have been very happy
>with them..
>
>Plans range from $3 a month for 10 gigs to $15 a month for unlimited..
>Good retention, tech support and billing has been really good..
>
>My ISP doesn't provide ANY newsgroups, so I went with APN last year on their 90
>day trial and switched to the paid plan within a few weeks to get more gigs..
>YMWV
>
>
>mac
>
>Please remove splinters before emailing

I had signed up with NNTPjunkie recently. They started offering a special to
AT&T an Bell customers that adds extra free time. It also applies to Roadrunner
and Verizon customers that also lost some or all of their Usenet service
recently too.

NNTPjunkie has a 30 GB accounts for under $10/month and they have Unlimited
accounts at $14.95/month. You can connect with Agent, but I've been checking out
their web access from work and I like it so far. If you have an interest...

http://www.nntpjunkie.com/overview.htm

Lance
--

In article <2e6a55d3-891b-4d78-a936-31a117d3cb9f@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
[email protected] says...
>
>On Jul 17, 10:32 am, mac davis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>My ISP doesn't provide ANY newsgroups, so I went with APN last year on their 90
>> day trial and switched to the paid plan within a few weeks to get more gigs..
>> YMWV
>
>Mac- what is APN?
>
>Robert

Hi Robert,

APN is dedicated newsgroup provider, and there are a number of companies out
there that provide similar service.

If you require better newsgroup access than what your ISP or a free newsgroup
service can offer, you have the option of buying a membership with one the
dedicated providers like APN.

I use a provider called Newsguy, which got an "A" ranking at the
Newsgroupreviews.com website (http://newsgroupreviews.com/Newsguy.html), which
reviews and ranks different newsgroup providers. I was unable to find APN
anywhere in their rankings.

For what it's worth I included a quick comparison of the two newsgroup providers
below...

Newsguy APN
Download capacity 10GB 10GB
Cost $3 month $3 month
Connections allowed 32 4
Binary history 90 days 70 days
Unused GB roll over Yes No
Free header downloads Yes No
NNTP & Web access Yes No
Newsgroup search engine Yes No
Free SSL security Yes No
Free email boxes Yes No

Most of the dedicated newsgroup providers have a trial period, so you can try
them for free before buying a membership.

I'd recommend trialing a few, and comparing their features & prices to find the
one that's best for you. I had to learn through trial & error that not all
newsgroup providers are the same, so I hope the info is helpful.

V

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 17, 4:43 pm, Vincent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <SNIP> of great info!
>
>> Most of the dedicated newsgroup providers have a trial period, so
>> you can try them for free before buying a membership.
>>
>> I'd recommend trialing a few, and comparing their features & prices
>> to find the one that's best for you. I had to learn through trial &
>> error that not all newsgroup providers are the same, so I hope the
>> info is helpful.
>>
>
> Wow! Thanks for the good information, Vincent. I appreciate you
> taking the time to get it all down in writing and supplying a link.
> I
> have been a newsgroup participant for over 10 years now, and it has
> changed a lot. I still remember a group of us trying to figure how
> one could upload "binaries" to a newsgroup many years ago.
>
> We all used "deja news", and we couldn't!
>
> As I have posted many times before, I am now using Google groups and
> it works great. NO binaries, but hey, for 0.00 you don't get
> everything. And since it has YEARS of retention, not days, you can
> use these groups for their highest and best use - their archives.
> Google groups/search creams everyone else on this.

Google Groups _is_ deja news--go to http://www.dejanews.com and see
where you end up. Since it started out as an archive of _all_
non-binary USENET posts (except those marked x-no-archive and those
the original poster has asked to be removed) retention is a non-issue.

Personally I find the Web interface very clumsy compared to a
dedicated newsreader.

> There used to be some binary replayer services around, but I think
> they are almost all gone now as well. I am thinking that there will
> be a time in the future where newsgroups will be considered such a
> special interest item that if you don't have access beyond your ISP
> you won't have any at all.
>
> I think the good news is that I didn't realize that ng access has
> gotten as cheap as it has. Unlike some, my DSL service was supposed
> to include ng acess, but me and the Phillipino tech support never
> got
> it to work. After about 5 - 6 tries, I gave up and that's when I
> went
> to GG.
>
> Again, thanks for the heads up.
>
> Robert

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Jack Stein wrote:
> ,
>>>> Vincent wrote:
>
>>>>> Usenet has changed considerably since the late 1980's... more
>>>>> newsgroups, more content, larger files, etc... and most ISPs &
>>>>> free resources do not want to invest in the equipment
>
> Jack Stein said..
> >> I'd bet byte for byte the equipment is far cheaper than it used
> to
> >> be. Heck, I'm sitting here with over 550 GIGS of hard drive
> storage
> >> myself,and I don't have millions of users paying $50/month for
> >> service.
> .
> krw wrote:
>> I don't remember the numbers, but your 550GB drive is likely enough
>> for an hour's complete Usenet feed. The amount of data is truly
>> massive.
>
> Well, in the 80's, my IBM PCxt cost $4000 and had a 10 MEGABYTE hard
> drive, the biggest HD around. For less than a $1000 I have a PC
> with
> over 500 GIGABYTES in hard drive storage. I can tell you for sure,
> Comcast can afford enough storage for WEEKS of usenet without
> blinking
> an eye. Heck, for FREE google stores years of usenet crap without
> blinking an eye.

Actually it's for advertising revenue, not "for free", and they don't
store binaries.

Can your PC with 500 GIGABYTES in hard drive storage deliver up
binaries fast enough to satisfy a large number of simultaneous users?

>>> I'm not aware of any newsgroup services charging $50 month, and
>>> most of the services I'm familiar with are inexpensive.
>>
>> One of mine is $8/mo and the other is (now, I've heard,) $16/yr.
>> It's not a big deal.
>
> It's a big deal to the millions of people that get it free now via
> Comcast. Most of those don't use it, and a lot less will use it if
> they
> have to pay even $1.00 for the service from a 3rd party.
>
>> Right. Usenet has always been a loser for the ISPs. It's not
>> really enough of their business to warrant the expense.
>
> Probably true, but do you know how much Comcast will save by
> dropping
> the Binary ALT groups from their Giganews contract? Do you even
> know
> how much Comcast pays Giganews for there complete service? I don't
> know
> either, but I bet if just Verizon and Comcast dropped all newsgroup
> services, most or ALL of the newsgroup providers would disappear.

Don't bet on it. USENET was around long before Verizon or Comcast.

>>> While I hope it's not the case, I have a feeling that ISPs will
>>> begin to discontinue their newsgroup services in light of the
>>> decisions made by Roadrunner, Verizon, AT&T, etc.
>>
>> They will, but as you point out, there are alternatives. I stopped
>> using my ISP's NNTP service about five years ago. A news
>> subscription is cheap and the service is much better than what I
>> got
>> with the ISPs.
>
> As I just pointed out, when/if the major ISP's quit carrying
> newsgroups
> altogether, you can forgetaboutit, there will be no usenet worth
> subscribing to, and your favorite independent news providers will be
> history. As it stands today, Comcast still provides Giganews FREE
> to
> all subscribers, including all Binary groups. The fact Verizon
> supposedly dropped all the binary groups needs to hurt Verizon, who
> is
> currently in major competition with Comcast. If no one complains,
> and
> no one switches ISP's as a result, then, my guess is Comcast will
> likely
> follow suit, and binary groups will be dead and gone. If they drop
> newsgroups altogether, then newsgroups will be dead as Fidonet, as
> will
> most of the independent newsgroup providers like Giganews.

Why will the independents be dead?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Jack Stein wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> Jack said:
>>> over 500 GIGABYTES in hard drive storage. I can tell you for
>>> sure,
>>> Comcast can afford enough storage for WEEKS of usenet without
>>> blinking an eye. Heck, for FREE google stores years of usenet
>>> crap
>>> without blinking an eye.
>
>> Actually it's for advertising revenue, not "for free", and they
>> don't
>> store binaries.
>
> So are you saying Comcast and Verizon will drop Usenet because they
> can't afford the storage?

No, because by dropping USENET they can reduce both their
administrative and hardware support costs with minimal loss of income.

>> Can your PC with 500 GIGABYTES in hard drive storage deliver up
>> binaries fast enough to satisfy a large number of simultaneous
>> users?
>
> No, but Comcast can, and that is what they sell, and the large
> graphics transported is the reason high speed providers exist.
> Storage of Usenet is a non-issue to companies like Verizon and
> Comcast.

So what is the relevance of your PC? You seem to be laboring under
the misconception that serving up large volumes of stored binaries is
just a matter of sticking a consumer drive in a machine.

>>>> Usenet has always been a loser for the ISPs. It's not
>>>> really enough of their business to warrant the expense.
>
>>> Probably true, but do you know how much Comcast will save by
>>> dropping the Binary ALT groups from their Giganews contract? Do
>>> you even know how much Comcast pays Giganews for there complete
>>> service? I don't know either, but I bet if just Verizon and
>>> Comcast dropped all newsgroup services, most or ALL of the
>>> newsgroup providers would disappear.
>
>> Don't bet on it. USENET was around long before Verizon or Comcast.
>
> Well, Verizon and Comcast was AT&T and they have been around longer
> than Usenet, but so what?

Comcast was AT&T? Sorry, but Comcast is a cable television company
and they have never been a part of AT&T.

In any case, USENET has never been dependent on any particular service
provider, not even the Internet as a whole.

> If the big high speed providers like
> Verizon and Comcast drop all the binary groups, the binary groups
> will be as dead as Usenet was before Usenet was accessible to the
> general public.
>
>> Why will the independents be dead?
>
> Because not enough people will care enough to support them.

Note that there are free servers out there.

> My guess
> is Giganews gets a ton more money from Comcast than all the
> individual
> subscriptions combined.

When you know for sure get back to us.

> They will likely be the first to fall if the
> big ISP's drop Usenet, and most of the rest will be gone right
> behind
> them due to lack of interest. If only Verizon drops all binary
> groups, their will be a huge dent to the alt binary groups to the
> point that MOST if not all the binary groups will disappear, even
> though Comcast still carries them.

This may come as a shock to you but neither Verizon nor Comcast is the
world.

> As it stands, although a very large majority of internet users have
> almost instant, free access to the newsgroups, only a very small
> percentage take advantage of it. My guess is a significant
> percentage
> of those folks will not go to the bother of actively searching out
> an
> independent provider that they have to send extra money to get the
> service. Some will of course, but will that be enough to sustain
> the
> independent providers, or even Usenet itself?
>
> Regardless of how it goes, I feel confident storage of Usenet is a
> non-issue as the price of storage has gone through the floor years
> ago, and is still falling at an amazing rate.

Says the guy who has never seen a server farm.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Nova wrote:
> Maxwell Lol wrote:
>> Jack Stein <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>> So are you saying Comcast and Verizon will drop Usenet because
>>> they
>>> can't afford the storage?
>>
>>
>> Don't forget the labor and maintenance.
>> Anything they can do yo save pennies.
>
> ... and the litigation expenses and fines brought on by the promised
> prosecution by the New York State Attorney General.

That's really an empty threat--he'd have as much luck sueing the phone
company over an obscene phone call.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Jack Stein wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Jack Stein wrote:
>
>>> So are you saying Comcast and Verizon will drop Usenet because
>>> they
>>> can't afford the storage?
>>
>> No, because by dropping USENET they can reduce both their
>> administrative and hardware support costs with minimal loss of
>> income.
>
> Really? How much does Comcast spend as a percentage of the
> administrative and hardware expenses by providing free Usenet access
> to all their customers?

If they save two cents a millennium it's still a saving. Geez.

>>>> Can your PC with 500 GIGABYTES in hard drive storage deliver up
>>>> binaries fast enough to satisfy a large number of simultaneous
>>>> users?
>>> No, but Comcast can, and that is what they sell, and the large
>>> graphics transported is the reason high speed providers exist.
>>> Storage of Usenet is a non-issue to companies like Verizon and
>>> Comcast.
>>
>> So what is the relevance of your PC? You seem to be laboring under
>> the misconception that serving up large volumes of stored binaries
>> is
>> just a matter of sticking a consumer drive in a machine.
>
> The relevance has been made clear, but you choose to ignore what you
> don't like or doesn't fit in your views. Lets see if I can waste
> some
> time explaining it to you again.

No, it hasn't been made clear. The fact that a cheap drive can hold
a lot of data does not mean that that same cheap drive can deliver up
that data at a transfer rate high enough to satisfy the needs of a
large number of simultaneous users.
]
> Vincent said:
> "Usenet has changed considerably since the late 1980's... more
> newsgroups, more content, larger files, etc..."
>
> I said this stuff has gotten much cheaper, you insist on arguing
> about
> that.

"Stuff" has gotten cheaper but volume has also increased. How many
binaries were transferred in a week on USENET in 1980? How about now?

> I mentioned an IBMPCxt cost $4000 with a 10 meg hard drive in
> the 80's. I replaced that 10 meg hard rive in the 80's for $400,
> which is $40 per MEG. My current computer, which cost under $1000
> has over 500 GIGS of HD storage. 500 GIGS of storage in the 80's
> when I bought the HD at $40 a MEG would have cost lets see .....
> $22,000,000, or 22 MILLION dollars. Someone can check my math, but
> when you are done laboring over this concept, then you might
> understand why storage of huge amounts of information is no big deal
> to the likes of verizon and comcast.

Storage isn't if all they have to do is store it. What you don't seem
to be able to grasp is that they also have to be able to deliver that
data to the user in a timely manner. And your cheap consumer disks
can't do that. It's not a matter of network bandwidth, it's a matter
of the bandwidth of the individual drive itself.

>>>>>> Usenet has always been a loser for the ISPs.
>
> Numbers please? I doubt even Comcast knows the exact value of
> Usenet
> service to it's subscribers.

So how much profit do they make on something for which they don't
charge anything?

> It's not
>>>>>> really enough of their business to warrant the expense.
>
> How about free web space, is that enough to warrant the expense?
> How
> about 6 free independent email accounts so a family of 6 can all
> have
> their own separate email accounts? If you know all this about
> Usenet,
> then I guess you know the answers to all these Questions...

OK, genius, why _are_ they cutting USENET then?

>>>> Don't bet on it. USENET was around long before Verizon or
>>>> Comcast.
>
>>> Well, Verizon and Comcast was AT&T and they have been around
>>> longer
>>> than Usenet, but so what?
>
>> Comcast was AT&T? Sorry, but Comcast is a cable television company
>> and they have never been a part of AT&T.
>
> AT&T sold there internet service to Comcast.

In what universe was that?

> I was at an AT&T
> address, next thing you know, I had a Comcast address. Just as
> Verizon, Bell south, Southern Bell and some others came from AT&T,
> so
> did Comcast.

No, no matter what delusion you might be under, Comcast did not come
from AT&T.

>>>> Why will the independents be dead?
>>> Because not enough people will care enough to support them.
>>
>> Note that there are free servers out there.
>
> Fidonet was mostly free as well, but guess what... dead as a
> doornail.

And so all the free servers that are currently in operation will cease
to exist? Why will that happen?

If running USENET is as cheap as you claim, then why can't you run it
out of your basement with your PC?

>>> My guess is Giganews gets a ton more money from Comcast than all
>>> the
>>> individual subscriptions combined.
>>
>> When you know for sure get back to us.
>
> It was just a guess. Get back to "us" when you know the value of
> free
> Usenet, free web space, and multiple email accounts to Comcast vs
> the
> expense of providing all that free with your basic Comcast account.

So again what do you believe to be Comcast's reason for reducing
USENET service?

>>> They will likely be the first to fall if the
>>> big ISP's drop Usenet, and most of the rest will be gone right
>>> behind
>>> them due to lack of interest. If only Verizon drops all binary
>>> groups, their will be a huge dent to the alt binary groups to the
>>> point that MOST if not all the binary groups will disappear, even
>>> though Comcast still carries them.
>>
>> This may come as a shock to you but neither Verizon nor Comcast is
>> the world.
>
> Nothing shocks me, you must have me confused with someone else.
> More
> over, I don't think I ever suggested Verizon or Comcast is the
> world.
> I do think they are very big providers of internet service in the
> US.
> If you know differently, please let "us" know who the bigger
> providers
> are.

You are the one going on about how if Comcast and Verizon drop USENET
then it will cease to exist. So tell me, exactly how many Comcast and
Verizon subscribers are there in Europe, Japan, India, and China?

Geez, a couple of ISPs in New York take an action and according to you
the sky is falling.

>>> Regardless of how it goes, I feel confident storage of Usenet is a
>>> non-issue as the price of storage has gone through the floor years
>>> ago, and is still falling at an amazing rate.
>
>> Says the guy who has never seen a server farm.
>
> I guess you are saying if I ever saw a server farm, I'd know that
> the
> cost of storage since the 80's has NOT gone through the floor.

No, you'd know that the cost of purchasing, maintaining, and operating
a server farm is not negligible.

> You
> would be wrong at any rate... The cost of storage has gone right
> through the floor in just 25 years, to the point it is a non-issue
> to
> large ISP's like Comcast and Verizon as far as Usenet is concerned.
> That's why they can offer free web pages, multiple email accounts,
> and fee Usenet to all their customers.

If they could serve USENET from a 50 buck consumer drive you would be
right, but they cannot provide the kind of volume required by the
method of sticking a cheap drive in a PC. They still need arrays that
can provide the required bandwidth. Drives, no matter how great their
storage capacity, remain SLOW AS FUCKING CHRISTMAS compared to
everything else involved with moving data. That's the point you
consistently fail to grasp.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Jack Stein wrote:
> Maxwell Lol wrote:
>> Jack Stein <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> Still, I do not expect Verizon to keep usenet all that much
>>>> longer,
>>>> especially not if I have underestimated the manpower required.
>>> Do you expect Comcast to drop multiple email accounts, free web
>>> space, free Usenet, and a bunch of other crap that many people
>>> don't know about or care about?
>
>> Multiple email accounts costs nearly nothing, once you support 1 or
>> 2
>> per user. USENET is a significant investment.
>
> Depends on your definition of significant. Consider that both
> Verizon
> and Comcast broadcast 24 hours a day all TV and sound over the same
> lines you get the internet, and significant begins to change.

No, it doesn't. You're confusing the cost of forwarding packets with
the cost of storing and serving up data.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Jack Stein wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Jack Stein wrote:
>
> USENET is a significant investment.
>
>>> Depends on your definition of significant. Consider that both
>>> Verizon and Comcast broadcast 24 hours a day all TV and sound over
>>> the same lines you get the internet, and significant begins to
>>> change.
>
>> No, it doesn't. You're confusing the cost of forwarding packets
>> with
>> the cost of storing and serving up data.
>
> Serving up data is the same,

If you think that you don't know enough for your opinion to be worth
considering. The sustained data transfer rate for a 100 buck disk is
about 100 MB/sec for sequential transfers under ideal conditions. In
the real world it's more like 10 MB/sec for random access, which is
what it has to do to serve up USENET binaries to different
simultaneous users. A hundred buck network bridge can transfer more
than 3000 MB/sec.

Keeping even that cheap bridge loaded to capacity is going to require
even under ideal conditions 30 of those cheap disks.

Do you see the difference _now_?


> and the speed, as I explained, has
> increased incredibly since the 90's, let alone the 80's.A Storage
> I've
> already explained to you is about $22 MILLION dollars cheaper per
> 500
> gigs than it was in the 80's based on what a 10 meg drive cost me
> for
> an IBM PCxt.

Again you're on about _size_, you're ignoring transfer rate, and the
relationship between that size and the volume of data involved.

> I don't know the exact figures, but one hell of a lot of email,
> including huge graphics files and video files is sent around the
> internet every day. I do know 70% of it is spam and none of the
> ISP's
> blink an eye. This stuff just ain't no big deal when you are
> talking
> terabytes of cheap storage and data transmission.

Cheap storage isn't fast storage. A mail server doesn't have to
deliver the same file to several simultaneous users. Video files and
"huge graphics files" are not in general stored by the ISP.

> I'm sorry you can't see that the reason problems may arise with some
> or all binary groups is not the cost of providing this stuff or
> storing it for a brief time, it is simply child porn that has put a
> bur under everyone's saddle.

I'm sorry that you can't see that New York has about 0.3 percent of
the population of the world and the only place that "kiddie porn" is
being used as an excuse to drop binaries is New York.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "J. Clarke" & Jack Stein both wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Sounds like:
> My daddy can whip your daddy.
>
> Nah, na nah, na.

To put this in woodworking terms, his proposed use of cheap consumer
drives to serve up USENET binaries to thousands of users is like
someone proposing to set up a production line to rip 8/4 lumber by
chucking a 1/8 inch Rotozip bit in a Dremel.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Jack Stein wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> To put this in woodworking terms, his proposed use of cheap
>> consumer
>> drives to serve up USENET binaries to thousands of users is like
>> someone proposing to set up a production line to rip 8/4 lumber by
>> chucking a 1/8 inch Rotozip bit in a Dremel.
>
> To put this in human terms any fool can understand, your dancing
> around the issue, making stuff up like me proposing to use cheap
> consumer drives to serve up USENET binaries is too lame for words.

It is now clear that you are arguing for the sake of argument and
can't even keep track of your own assertions. You may have the last
word if you wish.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

,
>>> Vincent wrote:

>>>> Usenet has changed considerably since the late 1980's... more newsgroups, more
>>>> content, larger files, etc... and most ISPs & free resources do not want to
>>>> invest in the equipment

Jack Stein said..
>> I'd bet byte for byte the equipment is far cheaper than it used to
>> be. Heck, I'm sitting here with over 550 GIGS of hard drive storage
>> myself,and I don't have millions of users paying $50/month for
>> service.
.
krw wrote:
> I don't remember the numbers, but your 550GB drive is likely enough
> for an hour's complete Usenet feed. The amount of data is truly
> massive.

Well, in the 80's, my IBM PCxt cost $4000 and had a 10 MEGABYTE hard
drive, the biggest HD around. For less than a $1000 I have a PC with
over 500 GIGABYTES in hard drive storage. I can tell you for sure,
Comcast can afford enough storage for WEEKS of usenet without blinking
an eye. Heck, for FREE google stores years of usenet crap without
blinking an eye.

>> I'm not aware of any newsgroup services charging $50 month, and most of the
>> services I'm familiar with are inexpensive.
>
> One of mine is $8/mo and the other is (now, I've heard,) $16/yr.
> It's not a big deal.

It's a big deal to the millions of people that get it free now via
Comcast. Most of those don't use it, and a lot less will use it if they
have to pay even $1.00 for the service from a 3rd party.

> Right. Usenet has always been a loser for the ISPs. It's not
> really enough of their business to warrant the expense.

Probably true, but do you know how much Comcast will save by dropping
the Binary ALT groups from their Giganews contract? Do you even know
how much Comcast pays Giganews for there complete service? I don't know
either, but I bet if just Verizon and Comcast dropped all newsgroup
services, most or ALL of the newsgroup providers would disappear.

>> While I hope it's not the case, I have a feeling that ISPs will begin to
>> discontinue their newsgroup services in light of the decisions made by
>> Roadrunner, Verizon, AT&T, etc.
>
> They will, but as you point out, there are alternatives. I stopped
> using my ISP's NNTP service about five years ago. A news
> subscription is cheap and the service is much better than what I got
> with the ISPs.

As I just pointed out, when/if the major ISP's quit carrying newsgroups
altogether, you can forgetaboutit, there will be no usenet worth
subscribing to, and your favorite independent news providers will be
history. As it stands today, Comcast still provides Giganews FREE to
all subscribers, including all Binary groups. The fact Verizon
supposedly dropped all the binary groups needs to hurt Verizon, who is
currently in major competition with Comcast. If no one complains, and
no one switches ISP's as a result, then, my guess is Comcast will likely
follow suit, and binary groups will be dead and gone. If they drop
newsgroups altogether, then newsgroups will be dead as Fidonet, as will
most of the independent newsgroup providers like Giganews.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

Vincent wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:03:18 GMT, Smaug Ichorfang said...
>> Vincent <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>>> I'd have to think that most newsgroup users get their access through
>>> standalone newsgroup services
>>>
>> What in the world would make you think such a thing? I've been around
>> playing with computers since FidoNet days. Since before Timmy Berners-Lee
>> discovered html and the WorldWideWeb. Since back in the day when the
>> internet was only usenet, mail, and ftp. Then along can AOL and things
>> went downhill ever since. **sigh**
>
> I was referring to the current state of Usenet, and not the pre-Web days.
>
> Folks still access the newsgroups through their ISPs, they still connect to text
> based newsgroups through free resources, but there is definitely a growing
> percentage of Usenet users that access through paid newsgroup services.
>
> Usenet has changed considerably since the late 1980's... more newsgroups, more
> content, larger files, etc... and most ISPs & free resources do not want to
> invest in the equipment or an outsourcing arrangement to provide an adequate
> newsgroup service.

I'd bet byte for byte the equipment is far cheaper than it used to be.
Heck, I'm sitting here with over 550 GIGS of hard drive storage myself,
and I don't have millions of users paying $50/month for service.

As a result people move to dedicated newsgroup providers to
> get a better level of service (longer retention, no missing posts, etc.)

As it stands, I doubt you could get a better level of service than I get
from Comcast which provides Giganews free to their users.

> I get my Internet access through Roadrunner. It upsets me that I can't get
> Usenet through them, but nowadays it's simply more convenient, reliable &
> affordable to get my newsgroups through a dedicated provider like a Newsguy.

Around here it costs about the same for Verizon and Comcast, the two
large high speed providers. Verizon has fiber, Comcast has cable.
About the only difference I can see is Verizon supposedly is dropping
all the Alt binaries and Comcast still provides everything free. The
way I see it, Comcast has my business as long as they continue to
provide more bang for the buck. Dropping binaries is reducing services
that I use, and use a lot. Many people don't use any of this, and it's
free and right at their fingertips. Many fewer people will use these
services if they have to take the initiative in finding a service, and
then set it up.

I'd like to see Comcast advertise the fact they provide all newsgroups
free so people can share photos with the world whilst Verizon, their
lame competitor doesn't. Even if people don't know what it is, they
would love it because it's about pictures and it's free.

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com