"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> It appears that many ISPs in the USA are dropping or curtailing Usenet
> newsgroups.
>
> Here in South Africa the SAIX news server is becoming slower and less
> accessible, and sometimes it is two days before I can download headers,
> another two days before I can download bodies, and another two days before
> any
> replies get posted.
>
> It seems many people will be left with no alternative but the clunky web
> interface on GoogleGroups, or e-mail mailing lists.

<snip>

This may affect alt.fan.dune also.

> > It seems many people will be left with no alternative but the clunky web
> > interface on GoogleGroups, or e-mail mailing lists.

Or a paid server.

--
Gio

Giovanni Wassen wrote:

>>>It seems many people will be left with no alternative but the clunky web
>>>interface on GoogleGroups, or e-mail mailing lists.
>
>
> Or a paid server.

Or you could just tip your server. Say 15 to 20%, depending on service....

WM

Wild Monkshood <Wild_Monkshood@windstream.net> wrote:

>
>
> Giovanni Wassen wrote:
>
>>>>It seems many people will be left with no alternative but the clunky
>>>>web interface on GoogleGroups, or e-mail mailing lists.
>>
>>
>> Or a paid server.
>
> Or you could just tip your server. Say 15 to 20%, depending on
> service....

Would it work? :)

--
Gio

http://blog.watkijkikoptv.info
http://myanimelist.net/profile/extatix

"Giovanni Wassen" <extatix@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
> Wild Monkshood <Wild_Monkshood@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Giovanni Wassen wrote:
>>
>>>>>It seems many people will be left with no alternative but the clunky
>>>>>web interface on GoogleGroups, or e-mail mailing lists.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or a paid server.
>>
>> Or you could just tip your server. Say 15 to 20%, depending on
>> service....
>
> Would it work? :)
>
> --

Hi Folks,

Let me ask, Wouldn't GoggleGroups be affected if many major internet service
providers like Verizon and Sprint discontinued their newsgroup service?

Tony wrote:

> "Giovanni Wassen" <extatix@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
>
>>Wild Monkshood <Wild_Monkshood@windstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Giovanni Wassen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>It seems many people will be left with no alternative but the clunky
>>>>>>web interface on GoogleGroups, or e-mail mailing lists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Or a paid server.
>>>
>>> Or you could just tip your server. Say 15 to 20%, depending on
>>> service....
>>
>>Would it work? :)
>>
>>--
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Let me ask, Wouldn't GoggleGroups be affected if many major internet service
> providers like Verizon and Sprint discontinued their newsgroup service?

Personally, I wish GoggleGroups had been with the Baron's Spice Stores
when Leto's men and a few Fremen with the longing for an off world trip
took it out...

WM

>
>

Ah, I'm sure it could always be worse. Google Groups is the only
access I can get with my provider. :(

SandChigger wrote:

> Ah, I'm sure it could always be worse. Google Groups is the only
> access I can get with my provider. :(

I just hate the way some people wield Goggle archives as a hammer.

WM

"Tony" <tony@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> Let me ask, Wouldn't GoggleGroups be affected if many major internet
service
> providers like Verizon and Sprint discontinued their newsgroup service?
>

No... Google is it's own ISP and has usenet access in and of itself.

-W

"Clams Canino" <cc-marine@earthdink.net> wrote in message news:
>
> "Tony" <tony@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> Let me ask, Wouldn't GoggleGroups be affected if many major internet
> service
>> providers like Verizon and Sprint discontinued their newsgroup service?
>>
>
> No... Google is it's own ISP and has usenet access in and of itself.
>

Okay, that's good to know, but doesn't usenet require multiple independent
service providers in order to stay active, and thriving?

"Tony" <tony@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> Okay, that's good to know, but doesn't usenet require multiple independent
> service providers in order to stay active, and thriving?
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

"Clams Canino" <cc-marine@earthdink.net> wrote in message news:
>
> "Tony" <tony@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> Okay, that's good to know, but doesn't usenet require multiple
>> independent
>> service providers in order to stay active, and thriving?
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
>
>

Because I believe Usenet suffered from the loss of AOL as a newsgroup
service provider.

"Tony" <tony@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> Okay, that's good to know, but doesn't usenet require multiple
>>> independent
>>> service providers in order to stay active, and thriving?
>>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
>>
>>
>
> Because I believe Usenet suffered from the loss of AOL as a newsgroup
> service provider.

I really don't. The online world is a lot bigger as only AOL.

--
Gio

http://blog.watkijkikoptv.info
http://myanimelist.net/profile/extatix

Tony bared his/her soul & said, on 01/07/2008 12:33:
>
> Because I believe Usenet suffered from the loss of AOL as a newsgroup
> service provider.
>
Many would disagree, Tones!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

Unfortunately, a lot of AOLers had just enough intelligence to move over
to Google's usenet service.

"Giovanni Wassen" <extatix@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
> "Tony" <tony@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Okay, that's good to know, but doesn't usenet require multiple
>>>> independent
>>>> service providers in order to stay active, and thriving?
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Because I believe Usenet suffered from the loss of AOL as a newsgroup
>> service provider.
>
> I really don't. The online world is a lot bigger as only AOL.
>

I meant the loss of AOL resulted in much fewer people posting to Usenet.

In article <FvidnaxGK8dwAvfVnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
tony@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Giovanni Wassen" <extatix@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
> > "Tony" <tony@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> Because I believe Usenet suffered from the loss of AOL as a newsgroup
> >> service provider.
> >
> > I really don't. The online world is a lot bigger as only AOL.
> >
>
> I meant the loss of AOL resulted in much fewer people posting to Usenet.

Less AOL posters is generally considered to be a good thing.

--
Juho Julkunen

> Less AOL posters is generally considered to be a good thing.
>
> --

Hi Juho,

Yes AOL Usenet is gone, and we have to move on. AOL posters were known for
their technical unsophistocation, but many of them had good Usenet posts.

Tony wrote:

>
> "Clams Canino" <cc-marine@earthdink.net> wrote in message news:
>>
>> "Tony" <tony@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Okay, that's good to know, but doesn't usenet require multiple
>>> independent
>>> service providers in order to stay active, and thriving?
>>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
>>
>>
>
> Because I believe Usenet suffered from the loss of AOL as a newsgroup
> service provider.

Seems hard to imagine. AOL was a _cause_ of suffering to Usenet.
--
derek

"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote

<snip>

>>>
>>>
>>
>> Because I believe Usenet suffered from the loss of AOL as a newsgroup
>> service provider.
>
> Seems hard to imagine. AOL was a _cause_ of suffering to Usenet.
> --

It's true! Newsgroup posting volume is WAY down.

Tony wrote:
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>
>>>Because I believe Usenet suffered from the loss of AOL as a newsgroup
>>>service provider.
>>
>>Seems hard to imagine. AOL was a _cause_ of suffering to Usenet.
>>--
>
>
> It's true! Newsgroup posting volume is WAY down.

I hadn't noticed the quantity issue seeing as how the quality issue is
so blaring....

WM


>
>

Tony wrote:

>
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote
>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> Because I believe Usenet suffered from the loss of AOL as a newsgroup
>>> service provider.
>>
>> Seems hard to imagine. AOL was a _cause_ of suffering to Usenet.
>
> It's true! Newsgroup posting volume is WAY down.

You seem to have a problem understanding cause and effect. AOL introduced
huge numbers of essentially computer-illiterate users to the 'net. They
were never comfortable with Usenet, and preferred web forums. AOL dropped
Usenet because it had no appreciable value to the majority of their users.
Newsgroup volume was dropping long before AOL dropped Usenet.
--
derek

"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message news:
> Tony wrote:
>
>>
>> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote
>>
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Because I believe Usenet suffered from the loss of AOL as a newsgroup
>>>> service provider.
>>>
>>> Seems hard to imagine. AOL was a _cause_ of suffering to Usenet.
>>
>> It's true! Newsgroup posting volume is WAY down.
>
> You seem to have a problem understanding cause and effect. AOL introduced
> huge numbers of essentially computer-illiterate users to the 'net.

Yes, I agree.

> They
> were never comfortable with Usenet, and preferred web forums.

This sounds like an overgeneralization true for only a subset of AOL users.
I believe that many AOL users were comfortable with Usenet.

> AOL dropped
> Usenet because it had no appreciable value to the majority of their users.

AOL discontinued providing access to Usenet on June 25, 2005. No official
details were provided as to the cause of decommissioning Usenet access,
except providing users the suggestion to access Usenet services from a
third-party, Google Groups.

> Newsgroup volume was dropping long before AOL dropped Usenet.

Are statistics available detailing newsgroup posting volume pre and post
2005?

Tony wrote:

>
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message news:

>> AOL
>> introduced huge numbers of essentially computer-illiterate users to the
>> 'net.
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
>> They were never comfortable with Usenet, and preferred web forums.
>
> This sounds like an overgeneralization true for only a subset of AOL
> users.

Isn't that what I said? Any grammar teacher would point out that "they"
referred to the "computer-illiterate users", not to all AOL users.

> I believe that many AOL users were comfortable with Usenet.

Many, but far from most.

>> AOL dropped
>> Usenet because it had no appreciable value to the majority of their
>> users.
>
> AOL discontinued providing access to Usenet on June 25, 2005. No official
> details were provided as to the cause of decommissioning Usenet access,
> except providing users the suggestion to access Usenet services from a
> third-party, Google Groups.

It's simple economics. If the majority of AOL users were going to care - or
even a substantial minority - they'd never have risked their user base by
dropping it. They _did_ drop Usenet, ergo it didn't matter to most AOL
users.
>
>> Newsgroup volume was dropping long before AOL dropped Usenet.
>
> Are statistics available detailing newsgroup posting volume pre and post
> 2005?

Yes. Beats me where I last read them, though.
--
derek

"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message news:
> Tony wrote:
>
>>
>> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message news:
>
>>> AOL
>>> introduced huge numbers of essentially computer-illiterate users to the
>>> 'net.
>>
>> Yes, I agree.
>>
>>> They were never comfortable with Usenet, and preferred web forums.
>>
>> This sounds like an overgeneralization true for only a subset of AOL
>> users.
>
> Isn't that what I said? Any grammar teacher would point out that "they"
> referred to the "computer-illiterate users", not to all AOL users.

Hi Derek,

I guess my point was that although "computer illiterate," many of the
computer illiterate AOL users were comfortable with their AOL Usenet access
and enjoyed using it to participate in newsgroups such as alt.fan.tolkien,
and alt.fan.dune. In addition, their participation was valuable and
significant.

>
>> I believe that many AOL users were comfortable with Usenet.
>
> Many, but far from most.
>
>>> AOL dropped
>>> Usenet because it had no appreciable value to the majority of their
>>> users.
>>
>> AOL discontinued providing access to Usenet on June 25, 2005. No official
>> details were provided as to the cause of decommissioning Usenet access,
>> except providing users the suggestion to access Usenet services from a
>> third-party, Google Groups.
>
> It's simple economics. If the majority of AOL users were going to care -
> or
> even a substantial minority - they'd never have risked their user base by
> dropping it. They _did_ drop Usenet, ergo it didn't matter to most AOL
> users.

I do get the impression that maintaining Usenet access represents a
significant expense to internet companies. Therefore, they are willing to
drop the service even though a minority of subscribers dislike that policy.

>>
>>> Newsgroup volume was dropping long before AOL dropped Usenet.
>>
>> Are statistics available detailing newsgroup posting volume pre and post
>> 2005?
>
> Yes. Beats me where I last read them, though.
> --

You haven't mentioned any opinions about Verizon, Sprint, and Time Warner
cable subscribers, but all three companies have recently dropped the alt
newsgroup hierarchy from their servers. Are you predicting that this will
have no effect on Usenet?

Tony wrote:

> You haven't mentioned any opinions about Verizon, Sprint, and Time Warner
> cable subscribers, but all three companies have recently dropped the alt
> newsgroup hierarchy from their servers. Are you predicting that this will
> have no effect on Usenet?

Pretty much. We Usenetters are on our way to extinction anyway, and I
haven't had an ISP provide Usenet since 1998, so I don't see that three,
even large, companies are going to change anything. The new kids want ugly
web forums where people won't criticize them for using unintelligible
shorthand, as long as they use plenty of fancy emoticons.
--
derek

Derek Broughton said it like it is, on 07/07/2008 18:21:
> Tony wrote:
>
>> You haven't mentioned any opinions about Verizon, Sprint, and Time Warner
>> cable subscribers, but all three companies have recently dropped the alt
>> newsgroup hierarchy from their servers. Are you predicting that this will
>> have no effect on Usenet?
>
> Pretty much. We Usenetters are on our way to extinction anyway, and I
> haven't had an ISP provide Usenet since 1998, so I don't see that three,
> even large, companies are going to change anything. The new kids want ugly
> web forums where people won't criticize them for using unintelligible
> shorthand, as long as they use plenty of fancy emoticons.
>

Spot on.

[Cynic mode : ON] The main reason, Tones, why Usenet participation has
been going down the lav in recent years is that the vast majority of
people see it as being too anarchic; too "free", as in speech. Most want
to be part of a heavily-policed web-based forum culture with loads of
surrogate parental-figures telling them what to do and say. Groupthink
is safe, and comfortable, and should some awful, evil
insurgent/reprobate/troll try to think, say, or do otherwise then Mistah
Moderator will come along and kick some arse and make the world perfect
again. [Cynic mode : OFF]

Or is it all a dream?

"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message news:
> Tony wrote:
>
>> You haven't mentioned any opinions about Verizon, Sprint, and Time Warner
>> cable subscribers, but all three companies have recently dropped the alt
>> newsgroup hierarchy from their servers. Are you predicting that this
>> will
>> have no effect on Usenet?
>
> Pretty much. We Usenetters are on our way to extinction anyway, and I
> haven't had an ISP provide Usenet since 1998, so I don't see that three,
> even large, companies are going to change anything. The new kids want
> ugly
> web forums where people won't criticize them for using unintelligible
> shorthand, as long as they use plenty of fancy emoticons.
> --

I think you're saying that newsgroups are on their way to extinction because
of changing public preferences, not because newsgroups are being dropped by
major internet service providers. Does everyone agree with Derek's view?

Tony wrote:

> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message news:
>
>>Tony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You haven't mentioned any opinions about Verizon, Sprint, and Time Warner
>>>cable subscribers, but all three companies have recently dropped the alt
>>>newsgroup hierarchy from their servers. Are you predicting that this
>>>will
>>>have no effect on Usenet?
>>
>>Pretty much. We Usenetters are on our way to extinction anyway, and I
>>haven't had an ISP provide Usenet since 1998, so I don't see that three,
>>even large, companies are going to change anything. The new kids want
>>ugly
>>web forums where people won't criticize them for using unintelligible
>>shorthand, as long as they use plenty of fancy emoticons.
>>--
>
>
> I think you're saying that newsgroups are on their way to extinction because
> of changing public preferences, not because newsgroups are being dropped by
> major internet service providers. Does everyone agree with Derek's view?

I think that you should not call it Derek's view, but rather your
supposition of his view. Without his approval or confirmation, I mean.....

WM

>
>
>

Wild Monkshood wrote:

>
>
> Tony wrote:
>
>> I think you're saying that newsgroups are on their way to extinction
>> because of changing public preferences, not because newsgroups are being
>> dropped by
>> major internet service providers. Does everyone agree with Derek's view?
>
> I think that you should not call it Derek's view, but rather your
> supposition of his view. Without his approval or confirmation, I mean.....

OK, then. I was going to sit back and see what sort of response he got, but
I'll confirm that that _is_ my view. :-)

It goes back to the cause and effect issue - I believe ISPs are dropping
Usenet because most of their users don't care about Usenet, not that their
users can't use Usenet because the ISPs have dropped it.
--
derek

Derek Broughton wrote:

> Wild Monkshood wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Tony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think you're saying that newsgroups are on their way to extinction
>>>because of changing public preferences, not because newsgroups are being
>>>dropped by
>>>major internet service providers. Does everyone agree with Derek's view?
>>
>>I think that you should not call it Derek's view, but rather your
>>supposition of his view. Without his approval or confirmation, I mean.....
>
>
> OK, then. I was going to sit back and see what sort of response he got, but
> I'll confirm that that _is_ my view. :-)
>
> It goes back to the cause and effect issue - I believe ISPs are dropping
> Usenet because most of their users don't care about Usenet, not that their
> users can't use Usenet because the ISPs have dropped it.

Well, if my ISP drops Usenet, I drop my ISP. Unless they were to reduce
my bill by what a newsfeed/server would cost me. There are worse things
than posting through Google, but right now I am blank as to what that
might entail....

WM

Wild Monkshood wrote:

>
> Well, if my ISP drops Usenet, I drop my ISP.

Where are you planning to go? None of the ISPs available to me have offered
Usenet this century...

--
derek

Derek Broughton wrote:

> Wild Monkshood wrote:
>
>
>>Well, if my ISP drops Usenet, I drop my ISP.
>
>
> Where are you planning to go? None of the ISPs available to me have offered
> Usenet this century...

Windstream, my current ISP, has Usenet. Surely it is not the only one.
I don't know what your options are, but there are a variety of ISP's
that I could at least check for Usenet access.

WM
>

Wild Monkshood <Wild_Monkshood@windstream.net> wrote:

> Well, if my ISP drops Usenet, I drop my ISP. Unless they were to
> reduce
> my bill by what a newsfeed/server would cost me. There are worse
> things than posting through Google, but right now I am blank as to
> what that might entail....

I don't care if my ISP has Usenet access or not (they actually do, by the
way), I pay some 50 euros per year for unlimited access (no fair use
policy). I download a lot via binaries, mostly anime and tv-shows.

--
Gio

http://blog.watkijkikoptv.info
http://myanimelist.net/profile/extatix

Wild Monkshood wrote:
>
>
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>> Wild Monkshood wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Well, if my ISP drops Usenet, I drop my ISP.
>>
>>
>> Where are you planning to go? None of the ISPs available to me have
>> offered
>> Usenet this century...
>
> Windstream, my current ISP, has Usenet. Surely it is not the only
> one. I don't know what your options are, but there are a variety of
> ISP's that I could at least check for Usenet access.
>
> WM
>>

My current ISP, Toast.net, offers Usenet access through Giganews.
(Until a few months ago it was via Supernews; I liked that better
because of the much better spam filtering.)

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:15:30 -0300, Derek Broughton
<news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:

>It goes back to the cause and effect issue - I believe ISPs are dropping
>Usenet because most of their users don't care about Usenet, not that their
>users can't use Usenet because the ISPs have dropped it.

This naturally raises the question of whether extinction is actually
inevitable. Can the Usenet be resurrected? Is it possible to recruit
new members and revive interest in text-only forums? The fact that
there are still several (presumably profitable) companies which
specialize in offering Usenet access implies that the Usenet still
offers advantages that web forums cannot match.

Morgoth's Curse

"Morgoth's Curse" <morgothscurse2002@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iioc74p4f8mpjk65kjl6p6rhmgai82vt5t@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:15:30 -0300, Derek Broughton
> <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>>It goes back to the cause and effect issue - I believe ISPs are dropping
>>Usenet because most of their users don't care about Usenet, not that their
>>users can't use Usenet because the ISPs have dropped it.
>
> This naturally raises the question of whether extinction is actually
> inevitable. Can the Usenet be resurrected? Is it possible to recruit
> new members and revive interest in text-only forums? The fact that
> there are still several (presumably profitable) companies which
> specialize in offering Usenet access implies that the Usenet still
> offers advantages that web forums cannot match.
>

Just to play devil's advocate for the moment, one could say that the fact
that several companies still offer Usenet only means that they are just a
few stragglers who haven't gone out of business yet, but who will go out of
business soon.

Tony wrote:

> Just to play devil's advocate for the moment, one could say that the fact
> that several companies still offer Usenet only means that they are just a
> few stragglers who haven't gone out of business yet, but who will go out
> of business soon.

As a positive sign, there are companies that provide only (or mainly)
Usenet - and their number is slowly increasing (I think) - so it would seem
that there's still an economic value to them. If all the ISPs drop Usenet,
there'll only be those of us left who see Usenet as worth paying for - and
then perhaps we'll be without all the spammers. One can dream...
--
derek

"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message news:
> Tony wrote:
>
>> Just to play devil's advocate for the moment, one could say that the fact
>> that several companies still offer Usenet only means that they are just a
>> few stragglers who haven't gone out of business yet, but who will go out
>> of business soon.
>
> As a positive sign, there are companies that provide only (or mainly)
> Usenet - and their number is slowly increasing (I think) - so it would
> seem
> that there's still an economic value to them. If all the ISPs drop
> Usenet,
> there'll only be those of us left who see Usenet as worth paying for - and
> then perhaps we'll be without all the spammers. One can dream...
> --
> derek

Hi Derek,

That's certainly an optimistic take on the situation. I see that you and
Morgorth's Curse are noting that certain companies offer Usenet as their
primary service, and consequently they should resist requests to eliminate
their service, and/or refrain from eliminating their service in the belief
it has limited value to their customers.

Tony wrote:

> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message news:
>
>>Tony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just to play devil's advocate for the moment, one could say that the fact
>>>that several companies still offer Usenet only means that they are just a
>>>few stragglers who haven't gone out of business yet, but who will go out
>>>of business soon.
>>
>>As a positive sign, there are companies that provide only (or mainly)
>>Usenet - and their number is slowly increasing (I think) - so it would
>>seem
>>that there's still an economic value to them. If all the ISPs drop
>>Usenet,
>>there'll only be those of us left who see Usenet as worth paying for - and
>>then perhaps we'll be without all the spammers. One can dream...
>>--
>>derek
>
>
> Hi Derek,
>
> That's certainly an optimistic take on the situation. I see that you and
> Morgorth's Curse are noting that certain companies offer Usenet as their
> primary service, and consequently they should resist requests to eliminate
> their service, and/or refrain from eliminating their service in the belief
> it has limited value to their customers.

Well, as a business model, getting rid of your only product, would be
rather bleak. Devastating, even.

WM


>
>