[45585] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Reducing Usenet Bandwidth
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Schwartz)
Fri Feb 8 20:33:38 2002
From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
To: Stephen Stuart <stuart@tech.org>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:32:49 -0800
In-Reply-To: <200202082345.g18NjpQ44833@hi.tech.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <20020209013250.AAA22110@shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>I would argue that what USENET needs is a way for the cost of
>publication to be incurred by the publisher; storing the data in=
your
>own repository (or repositories) while pointers get flooded=
through
>the USENET distribution system would give publishers an=
incentive to
>do garbage collection that they do not have today.
=09Like many Internet settlement schemes, this seems to not make=
much sense. If
a person reads USENET for many years enjoying all of its wisdom,=
why should
he get a free ride? And why should the people who supply that=
wisdom have to
pay to do so? A USENET transaction is presumed to benefit both=
parties, or
else they wouldn't have configured their computers to make that=
transaction.
=09Does it make sense for the New York Times to pay me to read it?=
But perhaps
it does for the Weekly Advertiser.
=09The reason that automated schemes such as "publisher pays" will=
fail is
because determining who "should" pay is too complex for automated=
schemes.
You will just push around who takes advantage of who.
=09If you ask a question, you should pay. If I provide you with=
useful help,
you should pay. If I suggest a commercial solution to your=
problem, who
should pay? If I harass you for not knowing the answer to the=
question, I
should pay.
=09DS
