For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.

Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. What they 
actually said is that they are not raising their rates for this decrease in 
service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 some time ago, and they 
did not reduce their rates for that either.

Now the question is, is it worth my money to get a Supernews (or other 
Usenet) account? As the years have gone by since I first used net news and 
then Usenet, the Signal-to-Noise ratio has continually decreased until now 
it is mostly trolls and spammers.

So is it worth an additional monthly fee to me to get Usenet access? I lost 
access to alt.pinups and alt.linux.redhat in the previous reduction in 
service. Now I lose access to Sidney Lamb's informative posts.

I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they 
proposing to do October 1?

-- 
   .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
   /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
  /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
  ^^-^^ 07:15:01 up 5 days, 1:19, 3 users, load average: 4.23, 4.29, 4.26

Jean-David Beyer writes:
> Now the question is, is it worth my money to get a Supernews (or other
> Usenet) account?

I find Newsguy worth the $60/year I'm paying even though CenturyTel still
offers Usenet service of a sort.  Their filters plus my own get rid of
most spam and their basic service includes pretty much any newsgroup you
could want (about 7000 of them).  You also get email (Webmail and POP)
which I now use in preference to CenturyTel's ineptly-filtered sevice.

There are also some free services.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
> 
> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. What 
> they actually said is that they are not raising their rates for this 
> decrease in service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 some time 
> ago, and they did not reduce their rates for that either.
> 
> Now the question is, is it worth my money to get a Supernews (or other 
> Usenet) account? As the years have gone by since I first used net news 
> and then Usenet, the Signal-to-Noise ratio has continually decreased 
> until now it is mostly trolls and spammers.
> 
> So is it worth an additional monthly fee to me to get Usenet access? I 
> lost access to alt.pinups and alt.linux.redhat in the previous reduction 
> in service. Now I lose access to Sidney Lamb's informative posts.
> 
> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they 
> proposing to do October 1?
> 
If its just a few text only groups, use a free server. See my headers

If you want loads of up to the minute binaries, giganews, and pay.

Given the massive volume of binary news, nearly all the ISP 's are 
ducking out of usenet. It makes no sense given the relative costs of 
bandwidth and fast servers, to have nearly as many news servers as we 
currently do.

The Natural Philosopher writes:
> Given the massive volume of binary news, nearly all the ISP 's are
> ducking out of usenet.

They could drop just the binary groups, which should not exist anyway.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Jean-David Beyer wrote:

> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
> 
> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. What
> they actually said is that they are not raising their rates for this
> decrease in service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 some time
> ago, and they did not reduce their rates for that either.
> 
> Now the question is, is it worth my money to get a Supernews (or other
> Usenet) account? As the years have gone by since I first used net news and
> then Usenet, the Signal-to-Noise ratio has continually decreased until now
> it is mostly trolls and spammers.
> 
> So is it worth an additional monthly fee to me to get Usenet access? I
> lost access to alt.pinups and alt.linux.redhat in the previous reduction
> in service. Now I lose access to Sidney Lamb's informative posts.
> 
> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they
> proposing to do October 1?
> 
About a year ago, roadrunner improved my internet experience by removing 
usenet support entirely (and without warning).  I have since been using this 
free (text-only) service: http://www.eternal-september.org/

I filter out everything from googlegroups.com - vastly improves s/n.

On Sep 1, 7:21=A0am, Jean-David Beyer <jeandav...@verizon.net> wrote:
> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>
> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. What t=
hey
> actually said is that they are not raising their rates for this decrease =
in
> service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 some time ago, and the=
y
> did not reduce their rates for that either.
>
> Now the question is, is it worth my money to get a Supernews (or other
> Usenet) account? As the years have gone by since I first used net news an=
d
> then Usenet, the Signal-to-Noise ratio has continually decreased until no=
w

> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they
> proposing to do October 1?
>
> --
> =A0 =A0.~. =A0Jean-David Beyer =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Registered Linux User 8=
5642.
> =A0 =A0/V\ =A0PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Registered Machine =A0 24=
1939.
> =A0 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey =A0 =A0http://counter.li.org
> =A0 ^^-^^ 07:15:01 up 5 days, 1:19, 3 users, load average: 4.23, 4.29, 4.=
26

I was on Verizon Fios, now back onto cable.  Nevertheless, am using
GOOGLE to see several usenet fora.  I did this to eliminate
thunderbird as I no longer need it for mail why have it around for
just usenet.

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> For better service, Verizon ...  Now I lose access to Sidney Lamb

maybe Sidney is the CEO of Verizon ??


-- 
DenverD (Linux Counter 282315) via Thunderbird 3.0.1-1.1, KDE 3.5.7,
openSUSE Linux 10.3, 2.6.22.19-0.3-default #1 SMP i686 athlon

John Hasler wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher writes:
>> Given the massive volume of binary news, nearly all the ISP 's are
>> ducking out of usenet.
> 
> They could drop just the binary groups, which should not exist anyway.

Verizon dropped all but the Big 8 many months ago. alt. I believe is where 
most of the binary stuff was. But now they drop the Big 8 as well.

-- 
   .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
   /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
  /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
  ^^-^^ 09:20:01 up 5 days, 3:24, 3 users, load average: 4.64, 4.49, 4.29

Bryce wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> 
>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>>
>> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. What
>> they actually said is that they are not raising their rates for this
>> decrease in service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 some time
>> ago, and they did not reduce their rates for that either.
>>
>> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they
>> proposing to do October 1?
>>
> About a year ago, roadrunner improved my internet experience by removing 
> usenet support entirely (and without warning).  I have since been using this 
> free (text-only) service: http://www.eternal-september.org/
> 
> I filter out everything from googlegroups.com - vastly improves s/n.
> 
OK: lets see if new news server works. I already put googlegroups.com into 
the blacklist.

none wrote:
> Bryce wrote:
>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>>
>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>>>
>>> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. What
>>> they actually said is that they are not raising their rates for this
>>> decrease in service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 some time
>>> ago, and they did not reduce their rates for that either.
>>>
>>> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they
>>> proposing to do October 1?
>>>
>> About a year ago, roadrunner improved my internet experience by removing 
>> usenet support entirely (and without warning).  I have since been using this 
>> free (text-only) service: http://www.eternal-september.org/
>>
>> I filter out everything from googlegroups.com - vastly improves s/n.
>>
> OK: lets see if new news server works. I already put googlegroups.com into 
> the blacklist.
sorry. is this better?

In article <h7j9lo02bpd@news7.newsguy.com>,
none  <""jeandavid8\"@(none)"> wrote:
>Bryce wrote:
>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>> 
>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>>>
>>> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. What
>>> they actually said is that they are not raising their rates for this
>>> decrease in service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 some time
>>> ago, and they did not reduce their rates for that either.
>>>
>>> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they
>>> proposing to do October 1?
>>>
>> About a year ago, roadrunner improved my internet experience by removing 
>> usenet support entirely (and without warning).  I have since been using this 
>> free (text-only) service: http://www.eternal-september.org/
>> 
>> I filter out everything from googlegroups.com - vastly improves s/n.
>> 
>OK: lets see if new news server works. I already put googlegroups.com into 
>the blacklist.

Look towards nk.ca !
-- 
Member - Liberal International	This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Never Satan President Republic!
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God". They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Ps 53:1

none wrote:
> none wrote:
>> Bryce wrote:
>>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>>>
>>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. What
>>>> they actually said is that they are not raising their rates for this
>>>> decrease in service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 some time
>>>> ago, and they did not reduce their rates for that either.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they
>>>> proposing to do October 1?
>>>>
>>> About a year ago, roadrunner improved my internet experience by removing 
>>> usenet support entirely (and without warning).  I have since been using this 
>>> free (text-only) service: http://www.eternal-september.org/
>>>
>>> I filter out everything from googlegroups.com - vastly improves s/n.
>>>
>> OK: lets see if new news server works. I already put googlegroups.com into 
>> the blacklist.
> sorry. is this better?
better, but no name. I forgot how to set that in thunderbird

In article <h7jacj01bp9@news3.newsguy.com>,
Jean-David Beyer  <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
>none wrote:
>> none wrote:
>>> Bryce wrote:
>>>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. What
>>>>> they actually said is that they are not raising their rates for this
>>>>> decrease in service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 some time
>>>>> ago, and they did not reduce their rates for that either.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they
>>>>> proposing to do October 1?
>>>>>
>>>> About a year ago, roadrunner improved my internet experience by removing 
>>>> usenet support entirely (and without warning).  I have since been using this 
>>>> free (text-only) service: http://www.eternal-september.org/
>>>>
>>>> I filter out everything from googlegroups.com - vastly improves s/n.
>>>>
>>> OK: lets see if new news server works. I already put googlegroups.com into 
>>> the blacklist.
>> sorry. is this better?
>better, but no name. I forgot how to set that in thunderbird

nk.ca will offer USenet access for C$10/mo or
for ISP a fair cost.
-- 
Member - Liberal International	This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Never Satan President Republic!
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God". They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Ps 53:1

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:21:09 +0000, Jean-David Beyer wrote:

> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
> 
> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. What
> they actually said is that they are not raising their rates for this
> decrease in service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 some time
> ago, and they did not reduce their rates for that either.
> 
> Now the question is, is it worth my money to get a Supernews (or other
> Usenet) account? As the years have gone by since I first used net news
> and then Usenet, the Signal-to-Noise ratio has continually decreased
> until now it is mostly trolls and spammers.
> 
> So is it worth an additional monthly fee to me to get Usenet access? I
> lost access to alt.pinups and alt.linux.redhat in the previous reduction
> in service. Now I lose access to Sidney Lamb's informative posts.
> 
> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they
> proposing to do October 1?

I use news.individual.net, it costs 20 Euros a year. They have excellent 
spam filtering, I hardly see any spam in newsgroups.  

http://www.individual.net/

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:21:09 +0000, Jean-David Beyer wrote:

> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
> 
> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. What
> they actually said is that they are not raising their rates for this
> decrease in service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 some time
> ago, and they did not reduce their rates for that either.
> 
> Now the question is, is it worth my money to get a Supernews (or other
> Usenet) account? As the years have gone by since I first used net news
> and then Usenet, the Signal-to-Noise ratio has continually decreased
> until now it is mostly trolls and spammers.
> 
> So is it worth an additional monthly fee to me to get Usenet access? I
> lost access to alt.pinups and alt.linux.redhat in the previous reduction
> in service. Now I lose access to Sidney Lamb's informative posts.
> 
> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they
> proposing to do October 1?

I have used news.individual.net for access for several years. I find the 
meager price charged (1 euro per month) to be well worth it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>>
>> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. What 
>> they actually said is that they are not raising their rates for this 
>> decrease in service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 some time 
>> ago, and they did not reduce their rates for that either.
>>
>> Now the question is, is it worth my money to get a Supernews (or other 
>> Usenet) account? As the years have gone by since I first used net news 
>> and then Usenet, the Signal-to-Noise ratio has continually decreased 
>> until now it is mostly trolls and spammers.
>>
>> So is it worth an additional monthly fee to me to get Usenet access? I 
>> lost access to alt.pinups and alt.linux.redhat in the previous reduction 
>> in service. Now I lose access to Sidney Lamb's informative posts.
>>
>> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they 
>> proposing to do October 1?
>>
> If its just a few text only groups, use a free server. See my headers
> 
> If you want loads of up to the minute binaries, giganews, and pay.

I signed up with http://newsguy.com/overview.htm for US$60/year. They have 
other options.
> 
> Given the massive volume of binary news, nearly all the ISP 's are 
> ducking out of usenet.

Well, ducking out of alt. newsgroups would cut that out. They did not have 
to duck out of the rest. Verizon's news server was very slow, considering I 
have Verizon's FiOS. Newsguy seems as fast as I would expect.

> It makes no sense given the relative costs of 
> bandwidth and fast servers, to have nearly as many news servers as we 
> currently do.
> 
That could be true, but IMAO, Verizon should reduce their rates by $60/year 
since they cut out that service.

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>>>
>>> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. 
>>> What they actually said is that they are not raising their rates for 
>>> this decrease in service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 
>>> some time ago, and they did not reduce their rates for that either.
>>>
>>> Now the question is, is it worth my money to get a Supernews (or 
>>> other Usenet) account? As the years have gone by since I first used 
>>> net news and then Usenet, the Signal-to-Noise ratio has continually 
>>> decreased until now it is mostly trolls and spammers.
>>>
>>> So is it worth an additional monthly fee to me to get Usenet access? 
>>> I lost access to alt.pinups and alt.linux.redhat in the previous 
>>> reduction in service. Now I lose access to Sidney Lamb's informative 
>>> posts.
>>>
>>> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are 
>>> they proposing to do October 1?
>>>
>> If its just a few text only groups, use a free server. See my headers
>>
>> If you want loads of up to the minute binaries, giganews, and pay.
> 
> I signed up with http://newsguy.com/overview.htm for US$60/year. They 
> have other options.
>>
>> Given the massive volume of binary news, nearly all the ISP 's are 
>> ducking out of usenet.
> 
> Well, ducking out of alt. newsgroups would cut that out. They did not 
> have to duck out of the rest. Verizon's news server was very slow, 
> considering I have Verizon's FiOS. Newsguy seems as fast as I would expect.
> 

The most vociferous complainers about usenet on my ISP's fora were 
always those demanding huge binary gay porn etc etc.

I think they decided it wasn't worth it. Very few people used it, and 
the cost of migrating and paying for the minority who did was less than 
doing it themselves.

There is definitely a case for onme server per continent, and pay per view.

Or free for uber low volumes. Like us chatting here.


>> It makes no sense given the relative costs of bandwidth and fast 
>> servers, to have nearly as many news servers as we currently do.
>>
> That could be true, but IMAO, Verizon should reduce their rates by 
> $60/year since they cut out that service.

Well change ISP if you don't like it. That's what I will be doing. With 
usenet gone, one big reason to stay has gone. The support is no longer 
good, so that's a second nail, and teh service whilst generally good, is 
expensive. Nail thre.

The final nail is I can also transfer phones and get cheap calls..to a 
small ISP retailing BT's products at a quarter the BT price. weird or 
what? Anyway, off I will be going..

A gradual process of moving to a better Internet and phone environment..

On 2009-09-01, Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.

Better service...for the rest of usenet.  ;-)

I know that many ISPs are dropping usenet service, but two in the States
I know of, Speakeasy (my own) and Sonic (might just be Bay Area) still
provide it.  SE's is through giganews.  I think Sonic's may still be
in-house, but don't quote me on that.

Anyway, my point is, with all of the big guns dropping usenet, the
''smaller'' ISPs can bring in those customers by keeping their feeds.
As a potential added bonus for them, many people who'd seek out usenet
service are slightly less technically inept, so support costs for those
new customers should (theoretically) be lower.

> Now the question is, is it worth my money to get a Supernews (or other 
> Usenet) account? As the years have gone by since I first used net news and 
> then Usenet, the Signal-to-Noise ratio has continually decreased until now 
> it is mostly trolls and spammers.

I know that this issue has been debated almost endlessly.  But, my hope
is that, as more large ISPs drop usenet, and it becomes harder to find,
the amount of trolling and spamming may decrease.  Actually, my
realistic hope is that the amount of trolling may decrease; I really
have no hope for decreasing spam anywhere.  :(  If that does happen
(yes, I know, a big if), then the S-N ratio may start increasing, or at
least stop decreasing.

I am not sure what I would do if SE dropped usenet access, though, so I
sympathize with your plight.  I suppose I might try harder to gate my
various mailing lists to a local NNTP feed, so that I could use slrn for
lists (for both reading and posting--I know other nntp feeds exist that
gate mail-to-news and back, but I've had little success using them for
posting).

--keith

-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:

> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of
> September 30.
>
> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet
> service. What they actually said is that they are not raising
> their rates for this decrease in service. They cut off service
> to all but the Big 8 some time ago, and they did not reduce
> their rates for that either.
>
> Now the question is, is it worth my money to get a Supernews
> (or other Usenet) account? As the years have gone by since I
> first used net news and then Usenet, the Signal-to-Noise ratio
> has continually decreased until now it is mostly trolls and
> spammers.
>
> So is it worth an additional monthly fee to me to get Usenet
> access? I lost access to alt.pinups and alt.linux.redhat in
> the previous reduction in service. Now I lose access to Sidney
> Lamb's informative posts.
>
> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What
> are they proposing to do October 1?

I think you should find something else to do with your time.
I am sick of your arrogance and ignorance.

Try taking some computer science courses at the local
community college and you might become 1/2 as good as
you want people to believe you are now.

Sid


-- 
Shell Interface Mailing List
screening address: usenet4444 
[AT] gmail (dot) com

Sidney Lambe wrote (in part):

> 
> Try taking some computer science courses at the local
> community college and you might become 1/2 as good as
> you want people to believe you are now.
> 

I _taught_ a computer science course at Bell Labs long ago.

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message.  If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
software that supports modern Internet standards.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-29848-1251842151-0002
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jean-David Beyer writes:

> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they 
> proposing to do October 1?

Hopefully, by dumping Verizon and replacing them with a real Internet 
provider. Whose tech support doesn't act like you've grown a second head, 
when you tell them you use Linux. Which still offers Usenet access, as part 
of the deal (with a reasonable upper quota).


--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-29848-1251842151-0002
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkqdmGcACgkQx9p3GYHlUOJltwCfRKxTRH9oyHy3GWWQ4I+8bEKt
NOsAnjr07c7zmOzBH3EF3eZexIqtAcN1
=PraY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-29848-1251842151-0002--

Sam wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer writes:
> 
>> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they 
>> proposing to do October 1?
> 
> Hopefully, by dumping Verizon and replacing them with a real Internet 
> provider. Whose tech support doesn't act like you've grown a second head, 
> when you tell them you use Linux. Which still offers Usenet access, as part 
> of the deal (with a reasonable upper quota).
> 
I am unaware of any other ISPs in the area suppling fibre-optic-to-the-home.

On 2009-09-01, General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:21:09 +0000, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>
>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>> 
>> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. What
>> they actually said is that they are not raising their rates for this
>> decrease in service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 some time
>> ago, and they did not reduce their rates for that either.
>> 
>> Now the question is, is it worth my money to get a Supernews (or other
>> Usenet) account? As the years have gone by since I first used net news
>> and then Usenet, the Signal-to-Noise ratio has continually decreased
>> until now it is mostly trolls and spammers.
>> 
>> So is it worth an additional monthly fee to me to get Usenet access? I
>> lost access to alt.pinups and alt.linux.redhat in the previous reduction
>> in service. Now I lose access to Sidney Lamb's informative posts.
>> 
>> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they
>> proposing to do October 1?
>
> I use news.individual.net, it costs 20 Euros a year. They have excellent 
> spam filtering, I hardly see any spam in newsgroups.  
>
> http://www.individual.net/

I'll second news.individual.net for the modest fee they charge.
They have an advantage that they're outside the USA, so Andy
Cuomo doesn't have any leverage to shut them down in the name of
fighting porn and such.  (Just in case anyone is wondering, I
subscribe to text newsgroups only and _NO_ porn!)

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@verizon.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

On 2009-09-01, Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
>...
> That could be true, but IMAO, Verizon should reduce their rates by $60/year 
> since they cut out that service.

I did better.  Back when Verizon dropped alt.*, I cut the amount
I pay to Verizon by nearly $500 a year by dropping a Verizon cell
phone and switching to a prepaid.  I made sure to explain to the
customer service and billing people that it was a response to the
cut in Usenet support.

I think I'll call customer support or billing to see whether
there are any third-party ISPs I can use while keeping FIOS as
the transport medium, just to let them know I'm unhappy and am
looking for alternatives.  On the other hand, Verizon has sold my
entire state (and a few others) to an outfit called Frontier.
Oh, well.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@verizon.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

Jean-David Beyer wrote:

> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
> 
> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service.
> What they actually said is that they are not raising their rates for
> this decrease in service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8
> some time ago, and they did not reduce their rates for that either.

Sounds typical.  My provider offers usenet still, and I don't know how
limited it is now, but it serves the purpose.  I can really take or
leave it, and I think most can.  A lot of discussions have moved to
other areas online, I don't really see less when I look at some of the
forums and blogs about the same topics.

> Now the question is, is it worth my money to get a Supernews (or other
> Usenet) account? As the years have gone by since I first used net news
> and then Usenet, the Signal-to-Noise ratio has continually decreased
> until now it is mostly trolls and spammers.

Usenet is dying, it has been dying.  I can't imagine paying for the
service, but it all depends because some topics/content can be useful,
though I've never used a binary/porn group even once and really don't
want to. I just don't see usenet being used like it is even now in
several months or the next couple of years.  It might always be around
and it serves the purpose it is intended for, but with less users and
more hassles and less action against abusive users, groups that once
had several hundred on topic posts now have maybe a dozen (usually when
there's a heated argument, rather than an interesting discussion).

> Now I lose access to Sidney Lamb's informative posts.

I really hope that you're just being humorous there.

> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they
> proposing to do October 1?
 
I know when a lot of ISPs dropped usenet (I'm waiting for mine to soon
enough, it's bound to happen and their service is on a third party
service anyway used nationally, and it sucks badly), they've gone to
free or paid usenet services.  I think if it comes to that with my ISP,
I'll just call it done.  I'd take an honest look at how much you use it
and care, and if the alternatives are really not just as good/useful,
because if they are and you don't care, then save the money and you
won't be here in 5 more years talking to yourself when it completely
dies.

This is a MIME GnuPG-signed message.  If you see this text, it means that
your E-mail or Usenet software does not support MIME signed messages.
The Internet standard for MIME PGP messages, RFC 2015, was published in 1996.
To open this message correctly you will need to install E-mail or Usenet
software that supports modern Internet standards.

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-30473-1251849309-0002
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jean-David Beyer writes:

> Sam wrote:
>> Jean-David Beyer writes:
>> 
>>> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they 
>>> proposing to do October 1?
>> 
>> Hopefully, by dumping Verizon and replacing them with a real Internet 
>> provider. Whose tech support doesn't act like you've grown a second head, 
>> when you tell them you use Linux. Which still offers Usenet access, as part 
>> of the deal (with a reasonable upper quota).
>> 
> I am unaware of any other ISPs in the area suppling fibre-optic-to-the-home.

Well, life sucks, what can I tell you. I found that once you accept that as 
a given, you no longer care as much, about these things.

Verizon doesn't yet run fiber in my area either. Even if they lay it down 
tomorrow, I think I'll stick with Speakeasy. The documented amount of 
Verizoff's suckage, IMO, is not worth it.



--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-30473-1251849309-0002
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkqdtF0ACgkQx9p3GYHlUOJUXgCbBDYCej04MvNdem2cSme9qgFt
KtcAnjJQyxK4mdgqG21eiQX9E6ckhrUC
=bj1E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_mimegpg-commodore.email-scan.com-30473-1251849309-0002--

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:55:00 +0000, Robert Riches wrote:

> On 2009-09-01, Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
>>...
>> That could be true, but IMAO, Verizon should reduce their rates by
>> $60/year since they cut out that service.
> 
> I did better.  Back when Verizon dropped alt.*, I cut the amount I pay
> to Verizon by nearly $500 a year by dropping a Verizon cell phone and
> switching to a prepaid.  I made sure to explain to the customer service
> and billing people that it was a response to the cut in Usenet support.
> 
> I think I'll call customer support or billing to see whether there are
> any third-party ISPs I can use while keeping FIOS as the transport
> medium, just to let them know I'm unhappy and am looking for
> alternatives.  On the other hand, Verizon has sold my entire state (and
> a few others) to an outfit called Frontier. Oh, well.

They don't have to share their FIOS infrastructure like they had to share 
their copper infrastructure. The reason that they had to allow thrid 
party DSL providers was that the copper system was built while they were 
a regulated monopoly, as such it's considered a public asset. FIOS is a 
new investment that's being made at a time when they aren't even the 
dominant broadband company let alone a monopoly. BTW even if you could 
get another ISP on FIOS you wouldn't want to because Verizon will find a 
way to make your life miserable. I had DSL from a local ISP that used 
Verizon's lines. For the first few years, before Verizon offered DSL, 
they were fine. But after Verizon started to offer DSL they took away the 
testers that allowed their lineman to sense if the local ISP's DSL was on 
a line. As a result Verizon would steal my copper every few months which 
would leave me without DSL for a day until they fixed it. Everytime they 
did this I get a worse pair of lines and my performance would drop. 
Eventually I gave up and switched to Comcast.

Sam <sam@email-scan.com> writes:

> Jean-David Beyer writes:
>
>> Sam wrote:
>>> Jean-David Beyer writes:
>>>
>>>> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are
>>>> they proposing to do October 1?
>>>
>>> Hopefully, by dumping Verizon and replacing them with a real
>>> Internet provider. Whose tech support doesn't act like you've grown
>>> a second head, when you tell them you use Linux. Which still offers
>>> Usenet access, as part of the deal (with a reasonable upper quota).
>>>
>> I am unaware of any other ISPs in the area suppling fibre-optic-to-the-home.
>
> Well, life sucks, what can I tell you. I found that once you accept
> that as a given, you no longer care as much, about these things.
>
> Verizon doesn't yet run fiber in my area either. Even if they lay it
> down tomorrow, I think I'll stick with Speakeasy. The documented
> amount of Verizoff's suckage, IMO, is not worth it.

My advice, if Verizon FIOS shows up, go for it.

Even without Usenet.  Usenet text comes free elsewhere.

I was one of their customers that specifically asked if they
had Usenet before I signed up, so I'm pissed and I disagree that
Usenet is outmoded, but I'll get over it.

On 2009-09-01, Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> I know that many ISPs are dropping usenet service, but two in the States
> I know of, Speakeasy (my own) and Sonic (might just be Bay Area) still
> provide it.  SE's is through giganews.  I think Sonic's may still be
> in-house, but don't quote me on that.

Super Dimension Fortress (sdf.lonestar.org) provides Usenet service
for their shell and VPN users.


  Roger Blake
  (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.)
  "Obama dozed while people froze."

On 2009-09-01, General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I use news.individual.net, it costs 20 Euros a year. They have excellent 
> spam filtering, I hardly see any spam in newsgroups.  

An excellent service that I have been using for almost 2 years now. You
have doubled the cost though, �10 is the price :-).

Andrew
-- 
Do you think that's air you're breathing?

Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.

Did anybody ask (and answer) -- what happens to the verizon newsgroups
that I only see on verizon's usenet?  I got a few issues about my
westell modem answered in those groups, after failing to find the
answers anywheres else.  Very useful groups.  I hope they're surviving
somewheres.  Anybody know where?  Thanks.

On 2009-09-02, JohnF <johnf@invalid.com> wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>
> Did anybody ask (and answer) -- what happens to the verizon newsgroups
> that I only see on verizon's usenet?  I got a few issues about my
> westell modem answered in those groups, after failing to find the
> answers anywheres else.  Very useful groups.  I hope they're surviving
> somewheres.  Anybody know where?  Thanks.

Probably not.  Many dedicated ISP newsgroups have disappeared
forever.  I suspect verizon's are next.

nb

In article <h7m9hk$hur$1@reader1.panix.com>, JohnF  <johnf@invalid.com> wrote:
>Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>
>Did anybody ask (and answer) -- what happens to the verizon newsgroups
>that I only see on verizon's usenet?  I got a few issues about my
>westell modem answered in those groups, after failing to find the
>answers anywheres else.  Very useful groups.  I hope they're surviving
>somewheres.  Anybody know where?  Thanks.

Google?
-- 
Member - Liberal International	This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Never Satan President Republic!
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God". They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Ps 53:1

JohnF wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
> 
> Did anybody ask (and answer) -- what happens to the verizon newsgroups
> that I only see on verizon's usenet?  I got a few issues about my
> westell modem answered in those groups, after failing to find the
> answers anywheres else.  Very useful groups.  I hope they're surviving
> somewheres.  Anybody know where?  Thanks.

ask Verizon maybe??

-- 
DenverD (Linux Counter 282315) via Thunderbird 3.0.1-1.1, KDE 3.5.7,
openSUSE Linux 10.3, 2.6.22.19-0.4-default #1 SMP i686 athlon

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-09-02, JohnF <johnf@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>> Did anybody ask (and answer) -- what happens to the verizon newsgroups
>> that I only see on verizon's usenet?  I got a few issues about my
>> westell modem answered in those groups, after failing to find the
>> answers anywheres else.  Very useful groups.  I hope they're surviving
>> somewheres.  Anybody know where?  Thanks.
> 
> Probably not.  Many dedicated ISP newsgroups have disappeared
> forever.  I suspect verizon's are next.
> 
> nb
My current ISP is obviously under pressure. Charges to top up are up, ou 
cant buy small extra bandwidth, support is a nightmare, and overall the 
whole service is going down and prices going up.

Like banks, you should change every few years if you have the option.

DenverD wrote:
> JohnF wrote:
>> Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>> Did anybody ask (and answer) -- what happens to the verizon newsgroups
>> that I only see on verizon's usenet?  I got a few issues about my
>> westell modem answered in those groups, after failing to find the
>> answers anywheres else.  Very useful groups.  I hope they're surviving
>> somewheres.  Anybody know where?  Thanks.
> 
> ask Verizon maybe??
> 
How would you do that? If you go to their web site, there is no way to 
e-mail them for questions of this kind; only menu after menu that ultimately 
get you back where you started.

If you telephone them, you get an IVR system that has you press button after 
button and ultimately gets you back where you started.

-- 
   .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
   /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
  /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
  ^^-^^ 07:45:01 up 7 days, 1:49, 3 users, load average: 4.10, 4.20, 4.23

Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> writes:

> DenverD wrote:
>> JohnF wrote:
>>> Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>>> Did anybody ask (and answer) -- what happens to the verizon newsgroups
>>> that I only see on verizon's usenet?  I got a few issues about my
>>> westell modem answered in those groups, after failing to find the
>>> answers anywheres else.  Very useful groups.  I hope they're surviving
>>> somewheres.  Anybody know where?  Thanks.
>>
>> ask Verizon maybe??
>>
> How would you do that? If you go to their web site, there is no way to
> e-mail them for questions of this kind; only menu after menu that
> ultimately get you back where you started.

http://forums.verizon.com/t5/FiOS-TV-Technical-Assistance/bd-p/FiOS_TV

> If you telephone them, you get an IVR system that has you press button
> after button and ultimately gets you back where you started.

Say "agent".

On 2009-09-03, DenverD <spam.trap@SOMEwhere.dk> wrote:
> JohnF wrote:
>> Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>> 
>> Did anybody ask (and answer) -- what happens to the verizon newsgroups
>> that I only see on verizon's usenet?  I got a few issues about my
>> westell modem answered in those groups, after failing to find the
>> answers anywheres else.  Very useful groups.  I hope they're surviving
>> somewheres.  Anybody know where?  Thanks.
>
> ask Verizon maybe??

As some may have seen, someone has created a new newsgroup

        alt.online-service.verizon

Reportedly, this URL will confirm it if you want to subscribe but
can't find it:

        ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/CONFIG/LOGS/log.2009-09

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@verizon.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.misc, in article
<h7m9hk$hur$1@reader1.panix.com>, JohnF wrote:

>Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:

>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.

>Did anybody ask (and answer) -- what happens to the verizon newsgroups
>that I only see on verizon's usenet?  I got a few issues about my
>westell modem answered in those groups, after failing to find the
>answers anywheres else.  Very useful groups.  I hope they're surviving
>somewheres.  Anybody know where?  Thanks.

[compton ~]$ grep verizon .newsrc | column
0.verizon.adsl                  0.verizon.test 
0.verizon.discussion-general    0.verizon.windowsxp 
0.verizon.email.spam            alt.cellular.verizon 
0.verizon.flame                 alt.verizon-sucks 
0.verizon.linux                 alt.verizon-sucks.ass 
0.verizon.newsgroup.requests    alt.verizon-sucks.dick 
0.verizon.security 
[compton ~]$ 

Ignoring the "alt.verizon.*" groups, you _may_ find those groups on other
servers that pride themselves on having more newsgroups than anyone else.
What will happen to the posts is a completely different question - as the
last time I looked at those groups, nearly all of the posts originated on
a verizon server.

        Old guy

"Moe Trin" <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote in message
news:slrnha0sb9.3dj.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us...
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.misc, in
article
> <h7m9hk$hur$1@reader1.panix.com>, JohnF wrote:
>
> >Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>
> >Did anybody ask (and answer) -- what happens to the verizon newsgroups
> >that I only see on verizon's usenet?  I got a few issues about my
> >westell modem answered in those groups, after failing to find the
> >answers anywheres else.  Very useful groups.  I hope they're surviving
> >somewheres.  Anybody know where?  Thanks.
>
> [compton ~]$ grep verizon .newsrc | column
> 0.verizon.adsl                  0.verizon.test
> 0.verizon.discussion-general    0.verizon.windowsxp
> 0.verizon.email.spam            alt.cellular.verizon
> 0.verizon.flame                 alt.verizon-sucks
> 0.verizon.linux                 alt.verizon-sucks.ass
> 0.verizon.newsgroup.requests    alt.verizon-sucks.dick
> 0.verizon.security
> [compton ~]$
>
> Ignoring the "alt.verizon.*" groups, you _may_ find those groups on other
> servers that pride themselves on having more newsgroups than anyone else.
> What will happen to the posts is a completely different question - as the
> last time I looked at those groups, nearly all of the posts originated on
> a verizon server.

The general discussion, email.spam, flame, linux, newsgroup.requests,
security, test, and windows groups are all redundant of existing groups in
other hierarchies.  The DSL and FIOS (not listed) groups are being replaced
by "alt.online-service.verizon" which was created a couple of days ago.

General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I use news.individual.net, it costs 20 Euros a year.

10, not 20.

-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!"          |
|            in            | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|     Computer Science     | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"                   |

Robert Riches <spamtrap42@verizon.net> wrote:
>> I use news.individual.net, it costs 20 Euros a year. They have excellent 
>> spam filtering, I hardly see any spam in newsgroups.  
>>
>> http://www.individual.net/
> 
> I'll second news.individual.net for the modest fee they charge.
> They have an advantage that they're outside the USA, so Andy
> Cuomo doesn't have any leverage to shut them down in the name of
> fighting porn and such.  (Just in case anyone is wondering, I
> subscribe to text newsgroups only and _NO_ porn!)
 
individual.net only offers text newsgroups, no binaries, so, no porn
anyway.
-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!"          |
|            in            | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|     Computer Science     | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"                   |

Robert Riches <spamtrap42@verizon.net> wrote:
> JohnF wrote:
>> Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>> 
>> Did anybody ask (and answer) -- what happens to the verizon newsgroups
>> that I only see on verizon's usenet?  I got a few issues about my
>> westell modem answered in those groups, after failing to find the
>> answers anywheres else.  Very useful groups.  I hope they're surviving
>> somewheres.  Anybody know where?  Thanks.
> 
> As some may have seen, someone has created a new newsgroup
>      alt.online-service.verizon
> Reportedly, this URL will confirm it if you want to subscribe but
> can't find it:
>      ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/CONFIG/LOGS/log.2009-09

Thanks, Robert.  alt.online-service.verizon indeed seems to
be the new home for most of the old 0.verizon.* users.
-- 
John Forkosh  ( mailto:  j@f.com  where j=john and f=forkosh )

D. Stussy <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> JohnF wrote:
>> Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>>
>> Did anybody ask (and answer) -- what happens to the verizon newsgroups
>> that I only see on verizon's usenet?  I got a few issues about my
>> westell modem answered in those groups, after failing to find the
>> answers anywheres else.  Very useful groups.  I hope they're surviving
>> somewheres.  Anybody know where?  Thanks.
> 
> The general discussion, email.spam, flame, linux, newsgroup.requests,
> security, test, and windows groups are all redundant of existing groups in
> other hierarchies.  The DSL and FIOS (not listed) groups are being replaced
> by "alt.online-service.verizon" which was created a couple of days ago.

Thanks, my ISP's indeed carrying that, an I'm subscribed to it now.
-- 
John Forkosh  ( mailto:  j@f.com  where j=john and f=forkosh )

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:21:09 +0000, Jean-David Beyer wrote:

> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
> 
> Of course, they are not reducing their rates for Internet service. What
> they actually said is that they are not raising their rates for this
> decrease in service. They cut off service to all but the Big 8 some time
> ago, and they did not reduce their rates for that either.
> 
> Now the question is, is it worth my money to get a Supernews (or other
> Usenet) account? As the years have gone by since I first used net news
> and then Usenet, the Signal-to-Noise ratio has continually decreased
> until now it is mostly trolls and spammers.
> 
> So is it worth an additional monthly fee to me to get Usenet access? I
> lost access to alt.pinups and alt.linux.redhat in the previous reduction
> in service. Now I lose access to Sidney Lamb's informative posts.
> 
> I suppose there are other Verizon subscribers out there. What are they
> proposing to do October 1?

Many, not JUST Verizon, are cutting Usenet services. Just too much 
resources (hardware) needed to maintain when your main business is ISP. 
Providing WWW access & email.

The load is shifting to companies who do nothing else but provide Usenet 
services. I use APN by Forte for an example.

-- 
======== Tecknomage ========
Computer Systems Specialist
     IT Technician
     San Diego, CA

Tecknomage <tecknode@nosapm.com> wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
> 
> Many, not JUST Verizon, are cutting Usenet services. Just too much 
> resources (hardware) needed to maintain when your main business is ISP. 
> Providing WWW access & email.
> The load is shifting to companies who do nothing else but provide Usenet 
> services. I use APN by Forte for an example.

Somewhat off-topic, but all the other pre-web/pre-browser services
like archie, gopher, etc, seem to have withered and disappeared.
Usenet seems to be the only legacy service that's remained healthy
and active in the browser-dominated internet era.  What's it about
usenet that keeps it so vigorous despite sexier-looking blogs/forums/
wikis/etc competing with it for user attention?
-- 
John Forkosh  ( mailto:  j@f.com  where j=john and f=forkosh )

JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:
> 
> Somewhat off-topic, but all the other pre-web/pre-browser services
> like archie, gopher, etc, seem to have withered and disappeared.
> Usenet seems to be the only legacy service that's remained healthy
> and active in the browser-dominated internet era.  What's it about
> usenet that keeps it so vigorous despite sexier-looking blogs/forums/
> wikis/etc competing with it for user attention?

it is fast, relevant, terse, flexible with no eye-candy,
ads, pop-ups, fluff, etc. Yes spam is a problem but not 
unmanageable. I can log onto a forum like this and immediately
see the new items and hide everything else. With most ( all?) web
forums and the like there's lots of fluff but no way
to do the simple things such as see the latest items only.

As such usenet answers can be VERY fast- no waiting for users to
eventually see the item.

Stan

JohnF wrote:
> Tecknomage <tecknode@nosapm.com> wrote:
>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>> Many, not JUST Verizon, are cutting Usenet services. Just too much 
>> resources (hardware) needed to maintain when your main business is ISP. 
>> Providing WWW access & email.
>> The load is shifting to companies who do nothing else but provide Usenet 
>> services. I use APN by Forte for an example.
> 
> Somewhat off-topic, but all the other pre-web/pre-browser services
> like archie, gopher, etc, seem to have withered and disappeared.
> Usenet seems to be the only legacy service that's remained healthy
> and active in the browser-dominated internet era.  What's it about
> usenet that keeps it so vigorous despite sexier-looking blogs/forums/
> wikis/etc competing with it for user attention?

Archie and gopher were very similar in concept to http so the more popular
and flexible http won out. Usenet is an entirely different paradigm.

Joe Beanfish <joe@nospam.duh> wrote:
> JohnF wrote:
>> Tecknomage <tecknode@nosapm.com> wrote:
>>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>>>
>>> Many, not JUST Verizon, are cutting Usenet services. Just too much 
>>> resources (hardware) needed to maintain when your main business is ISP. 
>>> Providing WWW access & email.
>>> The load is shifting to companies who do nothing else but provide Usenet 
>>> services. I use APN by Forte for an example.
>> 
>> Somewhat off-topic, but all the other pre-web/pre-browser services
>> like archie, gopher, etc, seem to have withered and disappeared.
>> Usenet seems to be the only legacy service that's remained healthy
>> and active in the browser-dominated internet era.  What's it about
>> usenet that keeps it so vigorous despite sexier-looking blogs/forums/
>> wikis/etc competing with it for user attention?
> 
> Archie and gopher were very similar in concept to http so the more popular
> and flexible http won out. Usenet is an entirely different paradigm.

Yeah, that sounds about right to me.  Google groups provides nothing
but a window into usenet, and an arguably less convenient one than,
e.g., tin.  And blogs/wikis/forums just aren't the same thing.
Forum/bulletin-board software comes closest, and arguably provides
a better user interface than tin.  But forums are haphazardly scattered
across the web and pretty much completely disorganized.  Maybe what's
needed is some kind of forum registry that provides an organized
and centralized front end, and maybe some kind of "forum namespace"
functionally similar to usenet's.
-- 
John Forkosh  ( mailto:  j@f.com  where j=john and f=forkosh )

JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:
> Joe Beanfish <joe@nospam.duh> wrote:
>> JohnF wrote:
>>> Tecknomage <tecknode@nosapm.com> wrote:
>>>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>>>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>>>>
>>>> Many, not JUST Verizon, are cutting Usenet services. Just too much 
>>>> resources (hardware) needed to maintain when your main business is ISP. 
>>>> Providing WWW access & email.
>>>> The load is shifting to companies who do nothing else but provide Usenet 
>>>> services. I use APN by Forte for an example.
>>> 
>>> Somewhat off-topic, but all the other pre-web/pre-browser services
>>> like archie, gopher, etc, seem to have withered and disappeared.
>>> Usenet seems to be the only legacy service that's remained healthy
>>> and active in the browser-dominated internet era.  What's it about
>>> usenet that keeps it so vigorous despite sexier-looking blogs/forums/
>>> wikis/etc competing with it for user attention?
>> 
>> Archie and gopher were very similar in concept to http so the more popular
>> and flexible http won out. Usenet is an entirely different paradigm.
> 
> Yeah, that sounds about right to me.  Google groups provides nothing
> but a window into usenet, and an arguably less convenient one than,
> e.g., tin.  And blogs/wikis/forums just aren't the same thing.
> Forum/bulletin-board software comes closest, and arguably provides
> a better user interface than tin.  But forums are haphazardly scattered
> across the web and pretty much completely disorganized.  Maybe what's
> needed is some kind of forum registry that provides an organized
> and centralized front end, and maybe some kind of "forum namespace"
> functionally similar to usenet's.

I'll disagree with you here, tin's interface is infinitely superior to
any of the forums I've used. I don't need to look through half a dozen
or more messages to see the new ones. On a really long multi-page
thread this is especially important. I get to use *my* editor of
choice, not some gui POS with all sorts of quirks and little icons
that make no sense. Tin automatically logs me in, and I can post with
no fuss.

	Jerry

Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
> JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:
>> Joe Beanfish <joe@nospam.duh> wrote:
>>> JohnF wrote:
>>>> Tecknomage <tecknode@nosapm.com> wrote:
>>>>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>>>>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many, not JUST Verizon, are cutting Usenet services. Just too much 
>>>>> resources (hardware) needed to maintain when your main business is ISP. 
>>>>> Providing WWW access & email.
>>>>> The load is shifting to companies who do nothing else but provide Usenet 
>>>>> services. I use APN by Forte for an example.
>>>> 
>>>> Somewhat off-topic, but all the other pre-web/pre-browser services
>>>> like archie, gopher, etc, seem to have withered and disappeared.
>>>> Usenet seems to be the only legacy service that's remained healthy
>>>> and active in the browser-dominated internet era.  What's it about
>>>> usenet that keeps it so vigorous despite sexier-looking blogs/forums/
>>>> wikis/etc competing with it for user attention?
>>> 
>>> Archie and gopher were very similar in concept to http so the more popular
>>> and flexible http won out. Usenet is an entirely different paradigm.
>> 
>> Yeah, that sounds about right to me.  Google groups provides nothing
>> but a window into usenet, and an arguably less convenient one than,
>> e.g., tin.  And blogs/wikis/forums just aren't the same thing.
>> Forum/bulletin-board software comes closest, and arguably provides
>> a better user interface than tin.  But forums are haphazardly scattered
>> across the web and pretty much completely disorganized.  Maybe what's
>> needed is some kind of forum registry that provides an organized
>> and centralized front end, and maybe some kind of "forum namespace"
>> functionally similar to usenet's.
> 
> I'll disagree with you here, tin's interface is infinitely superior to
> any of the forums I've used. I don't need to look through half a dozen
> or more messages to see the new ones. On a really long multi-page
> thread this is especially important. I get to use *my* editor of
> choice, not some gui POS with all sorts of quirks and little icons
> that make no sense. Tin automatically logs me in, and I can post with
> no fuss.  Jerry

Okay, Jerry, no argument from me either way about that.  I probably
didn't make my real point clear, which was following up on technomage's
remark that fewer and fewer nodes are carrying usenet, so it's
becoming in danger of biting the dust.  So if we can't keep usenet
services alive, what more web-based alternative might provide
replacement functionality?  My "working hypothesis" answer (i.e.,
not necessarily a real answer, but just to get the conversation
started) was some kind of forum registry that would provide a
usenet-like namespace, but then point each "newsgroup" to a forum
somewhere else on the web.  Then no one machine would have to
commit so many resources (technomage's reason why fewer nodes
are now carrying usenet).  That's certainly not the same thing
as usenet, but, like I said, it's just a working hypothesis.
-- 
John Forkosh  ( mailto:  j@f.com  where j=john and f=forkosh )

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, JohnF wrote:

> Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
>> JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:
>>> Joe Beanfish <joe@nospam.duh> wrote:
>>>> JohnF wrote:
>>>>> Tecknomage <tecknode@nosapm.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>>>>>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many, not JUST Verizon, are cutting Usenet services. Just too much
>>>>>> resources (hardware) needed to maintain when your main business is ISP.
>>>>>> Providing WWW access & email.
>>>>>> The load is shifting to companies who do nothing else but provide Usenet
>>>>>> services. I use APN by Forte for an example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Somewhat off-topic, but all the other pre-web/pre-browser services
>>>>> like archie, gopher, etc, seem to have withered and disappeared.
>>>>> Usenet seems to be the only legacy service that's remained healthy
>>>>> and active in the browser-dominated internet era.  What's it about
>>>>> usenet that keeps it so vigorous despite sexier-looking blogs/forums/
>>>>> wikis/etc competing with it for user attention?
>>>>
>>>> Archie and gopher were very similar in concept to http so the more popular
>>>> and flexible http won out. Usenet is an entirely different paradigm.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that sounds about right to me.  Google groups provides nothing
>>> but a window into usenet, and an arguably less convenient one than,
>>> e.g., tin.  And blogs/wikis/forums just aren't the same thing.
>>> Forum/bulletin-board software comes closest, and arguably provides
>>> a better user interface than tin.  But forums are haphazardly scattered
>>> across the web and pretty much completely disorganized.  Maybe what's
>>> needed is some kind of forum registry that provides an organized
>>> and centralized front end, and maybe some kind of "forum namespace"
>>> functionally similar to usenet's.
>>
>> I'll disagree with you here, tin's interface is infinitely superior to
>> any of the forums I've used. I don't need to look through half a dozen
>> or more messages to see the new ones. On a really long multi-page
>> thread this is especially important. I get to use *my* editor of
>> choice, not some gui POS with all sorts of quirks and little icons
>> that make no sense. Tin automatically logs me in, and I can post with
>> no fuss.  Jerry
>
> Okay, Jerry, no argument from me either way about that.  I probably
> didn't make my real point clear, which was following up on technomage's
> remark that fewer and fewer nodes are carrying usenet, so it's
> becoming in danger of biting the dust.  So if we can't keep usenet
> services alive, what more web-based alternative might provide
> replacement functionality?  My "working hypothesis" answer (i.e.,
> not necessarily a real answer, but just to get the conversation
> started) was some kind of forum registry that would provide a
> usenet-like namespace, but then point each "newsgroup" to a forum
> somewhere else on the web.  Then no one machine would have to
> commit so many resources (technomage's reason why fewer nodes
> are now carrying usenet).  That's certainly not the same thing
> as usenet, but, like I said, it's just a working hypothesis.

No, you miss the point.  Usenet has always been decentralized.  It
started in 1979, 30 years ago, because some guys had heard about
the mailing lists on Arpanet, and couldn't get access.  So they set up a 
"network" without Arpanet, without any fancy hardware.  Each site would
collect the messages posted there and dial up another Usenet site and
pass on the messages.  Each site would get new messages the same way.  It 
would take time for a message at one end of the country to make it to the
other end, and some got lost along the way, but it was done originally 
without phone lines, and as much as possible over local calls (though that 
was a problem in the days of really low user density).

When the internet became accessible, it was used for the message 
distribution, and yet for a time, many got Usenet access by dialing into
a local computer that had a newsserver on it, and did not have "internet
access", just usenet access.

What's changed from 20 years ago is that the internet became popular, and 
the masses came.  That meant instead of a small number of access points 
with small numbers of users each, there was consolidation as the small 
ISPs got bought up by something bigger, until there were mostly Really Big 
ISPs, that everyone further flocked to because they were the most visible.

Now those Big ISPs have a lot more users than any ISP in the early 
nineties, some are likely to have more users than had internet access 20 
years ago.  And yet, only a small percentage of their users are using
Usenet, which is why they get dumped.

Along the way, the consolidation meant that someone wasn't running a 
newsserver on some junk computer in the corner of the server room, someone
who really liked Usenet and participated. It became a job, the company
had to pay for it, and since they were peering with other Big ISPs, the 
feed became a commodity, rather than an exchange, "we'll pass messages
to you if you pass messages to us".  The line became even more clearer
when the ISPs dropped their own servers and paid for access to a handful
of standalone newsproviders, they had to pay out to get access.  It became 
a definite cost, and one they decided could be dropped since there was 
little useage, little return.

But Usenet is still decentralized.  I have far more computing ability than 
the computers of 30 years ago that were used for Usenet, I have better 
computing abiity than ISPs in the early nineties had when they came 
online.  There is nothing magical about what's needed.  I'm using Linux, 
which comes with the tools needed.  The only thing I'm lacking is 
bandwidth, which isn't a problem for many people with high speed 
connections.

Except for that bandwidth I could keep a newsserver.  I wouldn't bother
with all the newsgroups, and I would definitely ignore the binary 
newsgroups.  Other than configuring and a big enough hard drive, all I 
need is some other server to exchange messages with, and who in turn 
exchanges messages with others.

THey used "junk" computers with hard drives in the megabyte range 30 years 
ago.  Now, we have better computers, and instead of having the software
running at some computer we dial in, we can run the software and the whole 
operating system on our own computers.

If the Big ISPs don't want it, then cut Usenet back to a reasonable size, 
junk the binaries that are resource hogs (and which are not a good way
to transfer large messages that relative few are interested in), cut out
the deadrot, close off the spam (will you exchange messages with an 
unknown source, or only verifyable?  Will you cut off a newsserver that
is a source of spam, or let their messages get into the "network"?), do 
away with the commercial middlemen, and then it's back to a cooperative
system.

    Michael

I demand that JohnF may or may not have written...

[snip]
> So if we can't keep usenet services alive, what more web-based alternative
> might provide replacement functionality? My "working hypothesis" answer
> (i.e., not necessarily a real answer, but just to get the conversation
> started) was some kind of forum registry that would provide a usenet-like
> namespace, but then point each "newsgroup" to a forum somewhere else on the
> web.

Unless the client software provides caching much like today's stand-alone
newsreaders, none of them will do for those of us who read and occasionally
write while effectively offline.

[snip]
-- 
| Darren Salt            | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon
| using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds    ,demon,co,uk    | Northumberland | Army
|   Let's keep the pound sterling

The life which is unexamined is not worth living.

In article <509F95DCC0%news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid>,
Darren Salt  <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote:
>I demand that JohnF may or may not have written...
>
>[snip]
>> So if we can't keep usenet services alive, what more web-based alternative
>> might provide replacement functionality? My "working hypothesis" answer
>> (i.e., not necessarily a real answer, but just to get the conversation
>> started) was some kind of forum registry that would provide a usenet-like
>> namespace, but then point each "newsgroup" to a forum somewhere else on the
>> web.
>
>Unless the client software provides caching much like today's stand-alone
>newsreaders, none of them will do for those of us who read and occasionally
>write while effectively offline.
>
>[snip]
>-- 
>| Darren Salt            | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon
>| using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds    ,demon,co,uk    | Northumberland | Army
>|   Let's keep the pound sterling
>
>The life which is unexamined is not worth living.

Try out news.nk.ca .
-- 
Member - Liberal International	This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Never Satan President Republic!
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God". They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. - Ps 53:1

JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:
> Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> wrote:
>> JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:
>>> Joe Beanfish <joe@nospam.duh> wrote:
>>>> JohnF wrote:
>>>>> Tecknomage <tecknode@nosapm.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>>>>>>> For better service, Verizon is cutting off Usenet as of September 30.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many, not JUST Verizon, are cutting Usenet services. Just too much 
>>>>>> resources (hardware) needed to maintain when your main business is ISP. 
>>>>>> Providing WWW access & email.
>>>>>> The load is shifting to companies who do nothing else but provide Usenet 
>>>>>> services. I use APN by Forte for an example.
>>>>> 
--- snip ----
>>> 
>>> Yeah, that sounds about right to me.  Google groups provides nothing
>>> but a window into usenet, and an arguably less convenient one than,
>>> e.g., tin.  And blogs/wikis/forums just aren't the same thing.
>>> Forum/bulletin-board software comes closest, and arguably provides
>>> a better user interface than tin.  But forums are haphazardly scattered
>>> across the web and pretty much completely disorganized.  Maybe what's
>>> needed is some kind of forum registry that provides an organized
>>> and centralized front end, and maybe some kind of "forum namespace"
>>> functionally similar to usenet's.
>> 
>> I'll disagree with you here, tin's interface is infinitely superior to
>> any of the forums I've used. I don't need to look through half a dozen
>> or more messages to see the new ones. On a really long multi-page
>> thread this is especially important. I get to use *my* editor of
>> choice, not some gui POS with all sorts of quirks and little icons
>> that make no sense. Tin automatically logs me in, and I can post with
>> no fuss.  Jerry
> 
> Okay, Jerry, no argument from me either way about that.  I probably
> didn't make my real point clear, which was following up on technomage's
> remark that fewer and fewer nodes are carrying usenet, so it's
> becoming in danger of biting the dust.  So if we can't keep usenet
> services alive, what more web-based alternative might provide
> replacement functionality?  My "working hypothesis" answer (i.e.,
> not necessarily a real answer, but just to get the conversation
> started) was some kind of forum registry that would provide a
> usenet-like namespace, but then point each "newsgroup" to a forum
> somewhere else on the web.  Then no one machine would have to
> commit so many resources (technomage's reason why fewer nodes
> are now carrying usenet).  That's certainly not the same thing
> as usenet, but, like I said, it's just a working hypothesis.

The problem I have is that the average forum takes much more time
and effort than do newsgroups. The information is presented poorly,
posts are in the wrong area and people copy the entire thread into
their replies (with no facility like tin has to skip past quoted
text). 

I don't really buy the resources argument, disks are cheap, and if the
NNTP servers don't carry binary groups the storage and data transfer
resources shouldn't be that onerous. Just think of how much storage
Verizon needs for email and the bandwidth necessary to handle all of
the spam.  Also consider your average web site with pictures and flash
animations, the bandwidth for all of the crap on the average web page
has to be fairly large.

	Jerry