informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/JENNINGS/HISTORY/fido_info1.html

2901 lines
35 KiB
HTML
Raw Permalink Normal View History

Initial commit
2021-04-15 11:31:59 -07:00
<!doctype HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<!-- modified: 6/28/99 11:53AM -->
<html>
<head>
<title>
what_is_fido
</title>
<!--
***********************************************
Site Layout & Graphic Design
Copyright <20> 1998 - 1999 Gypsy Designs
www.gypsy-designs.com
***********************************************
-->
<script LANGUAGE = "JavaScript">
<!--
var base = "images/";
if (document.images) {
img1on = new Image(); img1on.src = base + "backa.gif";
img1off = new Image(); img1off.src = base + "back.gif";
}
function imgOn(imgName) {
if (document.images) {
document[imgName].src = eval(imgName + "on.src");
}
}
function imgOff(imgName) {
if (document.images) {
document[imgName].src = eval(imgName + "off.src");
}
}
// -->
</script>
</head>
<meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta content="Kevin Klement (design.manager@gypsy-designs.com)" name=Author>
<body BACKGROUND="" BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="#ffffff" LINK="#00ff40" VLINK="#00ff40" ALINK="#00ff40">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2>
Carleton University
<br>
Workinmg Papers in Puplic Access Netowrks
<br>
Working Paper 0992.dodd
<br>
<br>
What is a FidoNet?
<br>
Discussion of the Growth and Development
<br>
of an Amateur Computer Network
<br>
<br>
Carol Anne Dodd
<br>
<br>
Carleton University
<br>
March, 1992
<br>
<br>
<br>
Very few would argue that information bears no relevance to the concept of a
democratic society. Most of these societies have entrenched this
principle into the constitutions and charters that guide them. Yet although
the right to expression and exchange of ideas is guaranteed, the means by
which this information can be disseminated have been heavily protected and
regulated. Since the 60s however, technological booms have increased the
efficiency and potential accessibility of the information flow. The use of
computers for data transmission has revolutionized the concept of information
dissemination in such a way that these times have been dubbed the
&quot;Information Age.&quot; The irony of this title lies in the reality that
few are permitted to
benefit and greater lengths are taken to limit access to the information
source.
<p>
However, along with this technological boom came the accessibility of the means
to achieve the end. The boom provided many individuals with a
powerful technology heretofore inaccessible to the layperson. With this
technology a creative few discovered the means to turn a home computer from a
typewriter into a printing press. The technology provided them with the key to
the rapid and efficient dissemination of information and eventually to the
source of the existing information resources.
<p>
As the largest amateur information network in the world, FidoNet was born out
of accessible technology, creativity and a strong desire of
individuals to be a part of the &quot;Information Age&quot;. Since the early
1980s FidoNet has been instrumental in the dissemination of ideas and in making
accessible the technology necessary to this end. In less than a decade it has
grown to span &quot;over 30 countries in North and South America, all parts of
the
pacific rim including the Orient, Australia and New Zealand, Western and parts
of eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa&quot; (fido.txt) with over 10,000
nodes (addresses) worldwide.
<p>
However, despite its celeritous development and evolution, and all best
intentions, the future of FidoNet as a major force in the dissemination and
accessibility of information continues to be threatened by its inability to
reconcile its function as a force for the development of data transfer
technology and its role as a gateway to the information resource. The
resolution of the conflict between its technological and communicative
functions, which originated from its inception and continues to be prevalent
throughout the network structure, will determine its direction and allow it to
continue to thrive.
<p>
Before any discussion on the nature and origins of FidoNet is allowed to
continue, certain issues items must be clarified. FidoNet is an amateur
network: it was constructed at a grassroots level, and is not controlled or
regulated (or funded) by any outside body. Use of FidoNet for commercial
activity is strictly forbidden. The network itself is best described as a
series of privately owned and independently operated terminals using a common
information transfer protocol and compatible utilities to transfer information
over private telephone lines. &quot;FidoNet is not a common carrier or a
value-added service network and is a public network only in as much as the
independent, constituent nodes may individually provide public access to the
network on their system.&quot; (policy 4.07, June 1989)
<p>
FidoNet is an abstract entity: it's structure is defined by purpose and is ever
changing to accommodate the needs of those who utilize it. There is
no common history of FidoNet beyond the initial creation of the technology. The
rapid dissemination of information permitted by the FidoNet utility
allowed for the standard to be adopted in various parts of the world virtually
simultaneously. For this reason, the growth of FidoNet cannot be observed
beyond the evolution of the utility and the adaptations of the mail transfer
structure to accommodate the network's expansion.
<p>
There is no Official FidoNet history. Nowhere does there exist a formal,
objective documentation on the creation and evolution of the network,
instead the history of FidoNet must be pieced together from the personal
accounts and observations of various participants about their FidoNet
experience in their local network. For this reason, FidoNet history is fraught
with contradiction and severely limited scope. This study is
bounded by the limitations of the available data. In certain instances
special attention may be drawn to FidoNet activity in Eastern Ontario to
compensate for the diversity and ambiguity of the network as a whole. Eastern
Ontario represents the highest, and some of the earliest, FidoNet activity in
the country and is therefore a suitable microcosm of FidoNet in Canada.
<p>
FidoNet began as a direct mail exchange program created and tested by Tom
Jennings in San Francisco and John Madill in Baltimore in 1983. &quot;They
designed a system where, as a nightly event, [each BBS] would shut down and
run utilities that automatically transferred the changed files between
author's BBSs&quot; (Harry Newton, 1991). The utility, according to Tom
Jennings was created initially &quot;to see if it could be done&quot;
(Jennings feb85, FidoNet
History) but it's usefulness for the exchange of information quickly became
apparent. As messages were more quickly transmitted through phone lines as
condensed &quot;packets,&quot; more information could be sent the distance
without spending as much time on long distance lines. The power of this rapid,
inexpensive transfer of information and files was immediately demonstrated in
the exponential expansion and development of the original technology.
Facilitated data transfer allowed more developers to work on the technology
simultaneously and to efficiently exchange necessary data.
<p>
Within a very short period of time, Jennings and Madill were communicating with
a much greater number of systems (over 30 in 1984 by
Jennings' account but this number appears to refer only to the core FidoNet
group and not ALL systems utilizing the FidoNet utility). At this time the
format of information exchanged was limited to either data files (as in
programming source code etc.) or as E-mail type messages called Netmail.
<p>
As the number of Fido systems grew, the simple method of direct packet exchange
between point A and point B was no longer practicable. A method of
moving information to various points became necessary. This was the beginning
of the routing system (the backbone): information destined for one system
could be sent to another and passed on until it reached it's destination. The
increase in FidoNet participants also necessitated a method of identification
to ensure that routed information (hereafter referred to as mail) reached it's
destination. Each FidoNet system was then given an address (called a node)
that was included on a Nodelist that was distributed to each FidoNet system and
updated as new systems joined the network. To this date the Nodelist is
the most concrete representation of the network and is the single most
important component in its operation.
<p>
As the number of systems increased adjustments needed to be made: &quot;the
Fido software was changing [...] rapidly, to accommodate all the changes
(literally a version a day for a few weeks).&quot; (Jennings 1985, Fido
History) One of the significant changes was the creation of Echomail in 1985.
The
concept was born from a group of Dallas Fido system operators desire to
communicate more effectively. Their needs were discussed collectively and a
working utility was produced by Jeff Rush. ( Opus Sysop Operations Manual,
p155) Echomail combined the notion of Netmail with the established routing
technology. Discussion conferences were created on a variety of topics where
participants messages would be distributed along the backbone to any system
that had signed up for the conference. The movement and distribution of
Echomail quickly became a fundamental and critical part of FidoNet.
<p>
Meanwhile, even as Tom Jennings and John Madill distributed the FidoNet
utility to their colleagues throughout the United States, it was
spreading to various other parts of the U.S., Canada and Western Europe
simultaneously creating a series of small localized networks which
contributed to further spread of the technology.
<p>
As early as 1983, FidoNet had expanded into Canada. &quot;Andy Lusher [...]
Was the first [system operator] in this area to connect to the FidoNet system
as a [system operator]. Shortly after, [...] Al Hacker started running a
FidoNet BBS in Ottawa and applied for a network number which was granted.&quot;
(Charles Herriot, History of Net163) Within 2 years the number of FidoNet
nodes within the Ottawa area had grown to 10 nodes, another 7 joined the
following year. The local network was not part of the established backbone at
that time and the receipt of echomail necessitated the local system
operators to take turns making the long distance call to FidoNet BBSes in the
United States . (Charles Herriot, A History of Net 163) The FidoNet backbone
was extended as the number of FidoNet systems eventually increased.
<p>
Growth within FidoNet has been phenomenal. In under 10 years the technology
has spanned almost every continent with an estimated 13,000 nodes
worldwide (actual numbers are unavailable as systems continuously drop out or
join at any given time). However this number does not include all Fido
compatible systems as there are an innumerable number of BBSes and private
systems that receive FidoNet mail from a Fido node but do not have their own
Fidonode address. In addition there a a growing number (over 80) of Othernets
(alternate amateur networks using FidoNet protocol, utilities and mail
transfer procedures) which all support an indeterminate number of nodes and
many of which receive and contribute to FidoNet echomail traffic.
<p>
FidoNet in the National Capital Area has grown to over 152 nodes hosted by
three local networks (two in Ottawa, one in Petawawa) since 1983. That
represents an average growth of approximately 17 nodes per year in the Ottawa
area alone (close to 1500 nodes per year worldwide).
<p>
In order to accommodate the demands of information dissemination between the
growing number of nodes, a more effective mail delivery system
needed to be established. Using the currently evolving system, a FidoNet mail
delivery structure was created and continues as the *base* of FidoNet
structure today. The principle lay basically in dividing the network into
manageable parts which meant dividing the nodes on the nodelist geographically
and breaking the network down into smaller groups.
<p>
Today the nodes are broken down primarily by Zones, which are generally
delineated by continental boundaries (ie Zone 1 - North America, Zone 2
-Europe, Zone 3 -Oceania, Zone 4 -Latin America, Zone 5 -Africa, and Zone 6
-Asia). These Zones are further broken down into smaller Regions that
generally encompass an area containing 2-3 states or provinces in Zone 1 or one
or two countries in Zone 2. Within these Regions are any number of Local
Networks or independent nodes called Regional Independents (where no local
network exists). Nodes may be divided into smaller Hubs within large
networks. An administrative structure has been put in place at each level of
the structure to oversee the proper flow of mail and the management and update
of the Nodelist.
<p>
The operation of this structure can be demonstrated through the flow of mail
from its entry point ( for example, a local node) to its destination (say
a European node, in Zone 2). The sender would enter the message at the local
node. The node compresses the message along with other outbound mail and
send it along to its local Hub. The Hub sends the mail received from all of
its nodes on to the Network Coordinator (NC) who, in turn, sends the mail
received from all of the Local Network Hubs on to the Regional Coordinator
(RC) . The Regional Coordinator passes the Local Networks' and Regional
Independents' mail on to the Zone Coordinator (ZC) for that Zone. The Zone
Coordinator would then send the mail over to the destination Zone to be
distributed through the structure to the destination node. Of course , in
echomail, the message would be distributed to all systems along the structure
that carried the discussion group into which the message was entered. In the
case of international distribution echomail (as in this example), the Zone
Coordinator of the entry point Zone would distribute the mail to all other
Zones, including the destination Zone, for distribution to nodes who carry the
conference.
<p>
This structure was developed to minimize long distance charges in the
dissemination of mail and to ensure that the information is distributed to
FidoNet in its entirety. Remaining long distance charges, incurred from
connect time between each level of the *C ( *C refers to any or all level of
Coordinator) structure, is recovered from the individual nodes and passed along
the structure in such a way that each level is subsidized by the one
beneath it. The method of cost recovery is at the discretion of each local
network. In NET163 (the largest of the three Local Networks), echomail
contributions are voluntary, no fee structure exists but nodes receiving a
great deal of echomail are encouraged to contribute accordingly. The Ottawa
area nodes differ as well in that the Regional Coordinator for Eastern Canada
is a member of the Ottawa Network and no long distance charges are incurred in
the mail transfer between these points. However, the Ottawa networks continue
to subsidize the Regional Coordinator to offset the costs of other long
distance networks within the region.
<p>
In an attempt to enforce and protect this mail delivery system, a basic FidoNet
policy document was put in place. It was recognized that &quot;FidoNet is
large enough that it would quickly fall apart of its own weight unless some
sort of structure and control were imposed on it. Multinet operation provides
the structure. Decentralized management provides the control. This document
describes the procedures which have been developed to manage the network.&quot;
(policy 4.07, June 1989)
<p>
The scope of FidoNet policy is limited to the definition of each level of the
structure and its purpose in the movement of mail. For example, the
administrative responsibilities of the Network Coordinator are outlined as
follows:
<p>
&quot;1) To receive incoming mail for nodes in the network, and arrange
delivery to its recipients.
<br>
<br>
2) To assign node numbers to nodes in the network.
<br>
<br>
3) To maintain the nodelist for the network, and to send a copy of it to the
Regional Coordinator whenever it changes.
<br>
<br>
4) To make available to nodes in the network new nodelist difference files,
new issues of Fidonews, and new
revisions of Network Policy Documents as they are received, and to periodically
check to ensure that nodes
use up to date nodelists.&quot; (policy 4.07 June 1989)
<p>
Regulations guiding FidoNet are limited to the obligation of sustaining
compatibility with FidoNet standards and of making the node available
exclusively for mail transfer for one hour per day (the Zone Mail Hour, also
know as ZMH). Every other aspect of the control and regulation of FidoNet is
regulated by two very general commandments: &quot;Thou shalt not excessively
annoy others&quot; and &quot;Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.&quot;
(policy 4.07 June 1989)
The definition of these terms is left at the discretion of the *C structure.
The document also outlines a voting mechanism for the appointment of higher *C
(Zone Coordinator) positions and for the approval of policy documents. Network
Coordinators and Regional Coordinators are appointed by their superior
level (However, elections are held in Region 12 for RC and within Net163 for
NC).
<p>
There is no specific policy concerning echomail cost compensation nor are there
any specifications as the to the operations of FidoNet nodes or the
information content of individual systems (moderators of discussion groups may
impose some regulations to this end). The limited scope of FidoNet policy is
intended to account for the diversity of needs of FidoNet nodes and to allow
for their accommodation by the Local Networks themselves. FidoNet recognizes
the right of system operators to manage their individual systems in any manor
chosen (within the law). A strict technical interpretation of the network
also prevents the imposition of culturally biased values on international nodes.
<p>
However, since FidoNet Policy has not been updated since 1989 and the network
is in a constant state of evolution and growth, many aspects of
FidoNet have gone unregulated. Although Policy Document 4.07 allows for the
appointment of an &quot;assistant&quot; to help the Coordinator with the mail
processing
burden, it in no way provides for the current evolution of FidoNet. As the
number of nodes continued to increase, it became common practice for
Coordinators to appoint assistants to process mail while the Coordinators saw
to the general administration of the network. This became such common practice
(some would say a necessity) that an entire sub-structure of Echomail
Coordinators (*EC) was created to move the mail while the *C structure tended
to the administration. Ambiguity in the existing policy document, and their
removal from the general administration of the network, led to an eventual
attempt at autonomy by the *EC structure from the established Coordinator
structure.
<p>
The network today finds itself in a struggle between conflicting views on the
direction and mandate of FidoNet. Factions within the network have
begun to align themselves along two broad points of view. These affiliation
can in effect be characterized by the very existence of the two structures.
One side of the debate recognizes FidoNet as a powerful medium of
communication; a means for the free flow of ideas and the exchange of
knowledge. The other side identifies FidoNet as a means for the development of
fast and efficient data transfer technology. One structure ensures the
growth and development of the network, the other tends toward the increasing
efficiency and speed of the movement of mail.
<p>
As would be expected, ensuing discussion about the direction and purpose of the
network has lead to growing disaccord and politicization throughout
FidoNet. In the case of some Local Networks, as in Ottawa's Net163, these
factors have led to an all-out war.
<p>
Net163 was created at the &quot;very beginning&quot; of FidoNet and has evolved
and progressed along with it. Alignments were formed within a very short period
of time, as disagreements mounted over the direction and purpose of the
network. Two factions became quite apparent (as described by Charles Herriot
[making no attempt to disguise his alignment]):
<p>
&quot;SOCIALOIDS: generally the Visiting team in a [disagreement] of any kind.
These people labour under the
delusion that FidoNet is a hobby meant to be enjoyed [...]
<p>
TECHNOIDS: the home team when Netwars are played. The technoids believe that
technical performance
outweighs whether anyone actually enters messages or not [...]&quot; (Charles
Herriot, The Net 163 Coles Notes, July
1991.)
<p>
Typical items of contention were the content of messages and
&quot;appropriate&quot; topics of discussion, the use of pseudonyms, and
interpretation
and equal application of policy. There was general disapproval of the
&quot;Socialoids'&quot; lack of interest in the technology and with the
&quot;Technoids'&quot;
inflexibility.
<p>
The one group encourages the use of FidoNet for communication and attempts to
inspire the less technically adept to set up the FidoNet
compatible systems to become nodes. A local help manual was produced in order
to explain in a clear simple way the &quot;basics&quot; and functioning of
FidoNet to
new system operators. A Welcome Wagon node was also established to provide new
members with information or names of those FidoNet operators who are
available and willing to help with the technology. &quot;Socialoids&quot;
advocate the bending of rules and liberal interpretation of policy, in some
instances, for
the less adept.
<p>
The other side advocates the strict adherence to structure and technical
specifications. The &quot;Technoids&quot; discourage admission of non-
technically
oriented people into FidoNet because of the potential for error and disruption
of the mail transfer system. New system operators seeking help are often met
with hostility. This attitude is apparent in the testimonial of a new Net163
sysop who had managed to set up a running, FidoNet compatible system despite
his admission of knowing only &quot;about three DOS commands, and how to type
'telix' [...]
<p>
So far I've noticed how the whole organization is set up a bit like a wrestling
match. So far in my Net career, I've been threatened of being
tossed from it by several people, none of whom have the power to do so. My
introduction to the Net was anything but friendly [...]&quot; (Nick Panther,
How I
Got Into the Net, Jan 1990)
<p>
There exists the real concern that a lack of technical ability or constant
&quot;bending of the rules&quot; to accommodate those systems who are unable to
get fully compliant, would eventually lead to the collapse of the mail transfer
structure. It is also feared that the lack of interest in the
technology could also impede the progress and technological development that
have played such a large part in the creation of FidoNet. However, strict
inflexibility of technical policy would prevent many from joining FidoNet and
would greatly restrict the access to the information resource. Technological
elitism is also a very real problem with a purely technical orientation. As
new technological developments arise and are put into place, access to the
network and information source becomes further restricted to those who have
access to the higher technology.
<p>
There is no clear cut solution to repairing the rifts that have grown within
FidoNet. The disaccord between the two points of view in the Ottawa
network escalated to such a degree as to cause a split of Net163. A physical
division was created between &quot;Technoids&quot; and &quot;Socialoids&quot;
as those with a
technical bent migrated to the newly formed Net 243 (also in Ottawa). Such a
division on a larger scale would mark the eminent collapse of FidoNet.
Ongoing power struggles between the *C and *EC structures have already weakened
its foundation and various attempts at reconciliation through policy
revisions have failed to gain acceptance.
<p>
The growth and prosperity of an independent information network such as FidoNet
is nothing short of phenomenal. That it has succeeded thus far,
despite the innumerable technological changes and exponential growth since its
inception, is a testimonial to the ability of individuals to come together to
fulfill a common goal. Members of FidoNet today need to recognize the
interdependence of both the communicative and technical functions of FidoNet;
they need to rediscover the sense of cooperation upon which the network was
originally built or it will eventually, yet inevitably, pull itself apart.
<p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Bibliography
<br>
---------------------
<br>
<br>
Anderson, Chris., &quot;Was FidoCon '91 Too Commercial?&quot;, Fidonews v8 n37,
<br>
Sept 16 1990, pp10-12.
<br>
<br>
Anonymous and Untitled, Fidonews v9 n4, Jan 27 1992, pp12-15.
<br>
<br>
Appel, Dave., &quot;Other National BBS Lists&quot;, Fidonews v7 n53, Dec31 1990,
<br>
pp2.
<br>
<br>
Ashby, Logan., &quot;What the Heck's the Point?&quot;, Fidonews v8 n48, Dec 2
<br>
1991, pp3-5.
<br>
<br>
Baker, Ben., &quot;FidoNet Route Files Explained&quot;, Fidonews v7 n37, Sept 10
<br>
1990, pp1-12.
<br>
<br>
Burden, John., &quot;European Democracy, a Reply&quot;, Fidonews v8 n39, Sept
<br>
30 1991, pp5-7.
<br>
<br>
Bush, Randy., &quot;Decentralizing the FidoNet Nodelist --Decentralizing
<br>
FidoNet Power&quot;, Fidonews v8 n48, Dec 2 1991, pp5-6.
<br>
<br>
Decker, Jack., &quot;I Told You So !!!&quot;, Fidonews v9 n5, Feb 3 1992,
pp9-18.
<br>
<br>
&quot;Fido.txt&quot;, author and date unknown, Available upon request.
<br>
<br>
&quot;FidoNet Nodelist&quot; updated weekly.
<br>
<br>
&quot;FidoNet Policy Document V4.07 (POLICY 4)&quot;, June 9, 1989.
<br>
<br>
Freedman, Alan., &quot;Electronic Computer Glossary&quot;, 1991.
<br>
<br>
Ganger, David., &quot;I Didn't Know I Would Say That!&quot;, Fidonews v9 n9,
Mar 2
<br>
1992, pp 17-19.
<br>
<br>
Gardiner, Mike., untitled, Fidonews v8 n35, Sept 2, 1991, pp4-6.
<br>
<br>
&quot;General Echomail Policy V1.0&quot;, October 2, 1990.
<br>
<br>
Grainger, Chris & Larry Carvish (updated by Gordon Chapman), &quot;RTFM
<br>
1.02 (Read the Fine *cough* Manual): A Welcome to the new Net
<br>
163 SysOp&quot;, September 1, 1991.
<br>
<br>
Guy, Jonathan., &quot; A View from the Outside&quot;, Fidonews v8 n46, Nov 18
<br>
1991, pp2-4.
<br>
<br>
Henderson, Thom., &quot;Fear of Flying&quot;, Fidonews v8 n44, Nov 4 1991,
pp6-7.
<br>
<br>
Henderson, Thom., &quot;Credibility an the FidoNet Technical Standards
<br>
Committee&quot;, Fidonews v8 n43, Oct 28 1991, pp3-5.
<br>
<br>
Herriot, Charles., &quot;The Net 163 Coles Notes&quot;, September 1991.
<br>
<br>
Herriot, Charles., &quot;A History of Net 163&quot; (date unknown)
<br>
<br>
&quot;How Echomail Started,&quot; from the OPUS-CBCS V1.70 SYSOP Operations
<br>
Manual, pp155. (date?)
<br>
<br>
Jared, Joe., &quot;Cost Recovery (Hah!)&quot;, Fidonews v9 n1, Jan 6 1992,
<br>
pp18-20.
<br>
<br>
Jennings, Tom., &quot;Editorial...or Message From the Stars&quot; Fidonews v8
n44,
<br>
Nov 4 1991, pp1-4.
<br>
<br>
Jennings, Tom., &quot;FidoNet History and Operation, Part 1&quot;, February 8,
<br>
1985.
<br>
<br>
Jennings, Tom., &quot;FidoNet History and Operation, Part 2&quot;, August 1985.
<br>
<br>
Jennings, Tom., &quot;Fido Software Policy&quot;, July 5, 1989.
<br>
<br>
Jennings, Tom., &quot;Where Was I...&quot; Fidonews v9 n5, Feb 3 1992, pp1-2.
<br>
<br>
Kane Jeeves, Mahatma & David Lescohier., &quot;The Joy of Handles or
<br>
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Me (But Had No
<br>
Right to Ask)&quot;, Fidonews v9 n9, Mar 2 1992, pp 1-15.
<br>
<br>
Kidd, Garth., &quot;Responses, Decentralization, The USA, Cards and Koans&quot;,
<br>
Fidonews v7 n49, Dec. 3 1990. pp 3-6
<br>
<br>
Kleinman, Pablo., &quot;FidoNet is Screwed Up&quot;, Fidonews v8 n40, Oct 7
1991,
<br>
pp11-13.
<br>
<br>
Lewallen, Dale., &quot;A Poor Man's Compuserve can put cash in your pocket:
<br>
The Growth of Super Bulletin Boards&quot; from PC Computing, March
<br>
1991 v4 n3 p286(2).
<br>
<br>
McLain-Furmanski, Dennis., &quot;Who's On Top of the Top Down Structure&quot;,
<br>
Fidonews v9 n1, Jan 6 1992, pp11-16.
<br>
<br>
Merritt, Ralph., &quot; A Listing of Known OtherNets&quot;, Fidonews v8 n47,
Nov 25
<br>
1991, pp2-4.
<br>
<br>
Meyers, Brad., Untitled, Fidonews v9 n10, Mar 9 1992, pp2-3.
<br>
<br>
&quot;Net 163 Topology&quot;, February 1992 (compiled by Net 163's Net2000
<br>
committee)
<br>
<br>
Newton, Harry., &quot;Newton's Telecom Dictionary&quot;, 1991.
<br>
<br>
Nonken, Jeffrey J., &quot;AreaFix v1.10 User's Guide&quot;, January 5, 1989.
<br>
<br>
Panther, Nick., &quot;How I Got Into the Net: A Chilling Tale of Horror and
<br>
Deception&quot;, The Galactic Muffin (Region 12 Newsletter), Jan 30
<br>
1990, pp11-13.
<br>
<br>
Pereira, Michael., &quot;European Demo(Fido)cracy or Power Political
<br>
Platforms?&quot;, Fidonews v8 n38, Sept 23 1991, pp4-6.
<br>
<br>
&quot;Proposed FidoNet Policy Document V5.10&quot;, July 4, 1989.
<br>
<br>
&quot;Proposed Revision for Zone One BackBone Operating Procedures&quot;,
<br>
Fidonews v8 n37, Sept 16 1991, pp3-9.
<br>
<br>
&quot;Report to Net 163&quot;, Net2000 Committee, March 1992.
<br>
<br>
Rickard, Jack., &quot;FidoCon91, Commercialization, and the ONE BBSCON&quot;,
<br>
Fidonews v8 n36, Sep 9 1991, pp4-6.
<br>
<br>
Riddle, Mike., &quot;An Open Letter to Kwityer Bitchin&quot;, Fidonews v7 n36,
<br>
Sept 3 1990, pp5-7.
<br>
<br>
Ridgway, Dean., &quot;A Suggestion for a Zone One Policy&quot;, Fidonews v8 n40,
<br>
Oct 7 1991, pp20-21.
<br>
<br>
Salemi, Joe., &quot;FidoNet and PCRelay: technologies for networking you
<br>
BBS&quot;, from PC Magazine, Sept. 10 1991 v10 n15 p240(2).
<br>
<br>
&quot;Software.txt&quot;, author and date unknown, Available upon request.
<br>
<br>
Steck, Jason., &quot; A Coherent Look at Gateways&quot;, Fidonews v7 n7, Feb12
<br>
1990, pp1-4.
<br>
<br>
Steck, Jason., untitled, Fidonews v8 n43, Oct 28 1991, pp8-11.
<br>
<br>
Tees, Donald., Untitled, Fidonews v9 n10, Mar 9 1992, pp3-4.
<br>
<br>
Tobias, Daniel., &quot;Geography and FidoNet&quot;, Fidonews v9 n2, Jan 13
1992,
<br>
pp6-8.
<br>
<br>
Westlake, William., &quot; Rebuttal to 'A View from the Outside' by Jonathan
<br>
Guy&quot;, Fidonews v8 n47, Nov 25 1991, pp4-5.
<br>
<br>
Winslade, Jack., &quot;Cost Recovery (Yes!)&quot; , Fidonews v9 n2, Jan 13,
1992,
<br>
pp3--5.
<br>
<br>
<br>
&quot;WorldPol V2b October 14, 1991&quot;, Fidonews v8 n42, October 21 1991,
<br>
pp3-15.
<br>
<br>
&quot;WorldPol V2c (Proposed) Jan 11 1992&quot; Fidonews v9 n2, Jan 13 1992,
<br>
pp10-21.
<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<center>
<a HREF="fido_history.html" TARGET="_parent" onClick="return true" onMouseOver="imgOn('img1')" onMouseOut="imgOff('img1')"><img SRC="images/back.gif" width=120 height=25 BORDER=0 NAME="img1" ALT=""></a>
<br clear=all>
</center>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>