informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/FIDONEWS/fido1021.nws
root@procul 278a90f7ce Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

1149 lines
60 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

F I D O N E W S -- Vol.10 No.21 (24-May-1993)
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| A newsletter of the | |
| FidoNet BBS community | Published by: |
| _ | |
| / \ | "FidoNews" BBS |
| /|oo \ | +1-519-570-4176 1:1/23 |
| (_| /_) | |
| _`@/_ \ _ | Editors: |
| | | \ \\ | Sylvia Maxwell 1:221/194 |
| | (*) | \ )) | Donald Tees 1:221/192 |
| |__U__| / \// | Tim Pozar 1:125/555 |
| _//|| _\ / | |
| (_/(_|(____/ | |
| (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. |
| | -- JOSEPH PULITZER |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Submission address: editors 1:1/23 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Internet addresses: |
| |
| Sylvia -- max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
| Donald -- donald@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
| Tim -- pozar@kumr.lns.com |
| Both Don & Sylvia (submission address) |
| editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| For information, copyrights, article submissions, |
| obtaining copies and other boring but important details, |
| please refer to the end of this file. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
========================================================================
Table of Contents
========================================================================
1. Editorial..................................................... 2
2. Articles...................................................... 3
Subject: The lies of Derek Balling.......................... 3
Requesting a Fidonet Number?................................ 4
Sensible BBS names in the Nodelist.......................... 6
Cost Sharing Ripoffs & Other Assorted Tidbits............... 6
Texas Employment Commission (update)........................ 8
What Is StormNet?........................................... 9
Dark Fibre, Dumb Network.................................... 11
3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 20
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 2 24 May 1993
========================================================================
Editorial
========================================================================
There are two articles in the snooze this week that respond
to Mr. Balling's article a few weeks back. If you remember, that
article was over his being dropped from the nodelist.
There are a few points that we, as editors, would like to
make about both the original article and the responses. We do
not have any way of knowing who is right and who is wrong, or
even if anybody is wrong in a situation like this. We receive
articles, and we print them. It is up to those that are
familiar with the situation to attempt to give both sides of the
story.
Be that as it may, there are *always* two or more sides to a
story. Fidonet is run, and works, because a great number of
people donate a great deal of time and effort into making it
work. It is not at all unusual for one person to expect undue
amounts of work from a volunteer, or to complain bitterly when
they do not get the snap-to-it reaction that they expect. It is
unfair for people to read one side of any story, then take a
harsh stance without hearing the other side.
In addition, we and Tom Jennings before us have always pushed
for as few formal rules as possible within the net; this entire
episode illustrates one of the main reasons why. If Mr. Balling
had the ability to simply apply to another net for a node
number, then the dispute would be over. How annoying is
"excessively annoying"? The question would be a lot easier to
answer if policy 4 did not have a "rule" putting one person in
charge of an entire geographic area. Nets could operate like
echos: if you do not like one, start another.
Finally, we are running the second half of the "dark fibre"
article this week. For those too technically impatient to wade
through the entire thing, Mr. Gilder makes an extremely strong
case that the replacement of the entire switched telephone system
is inevitable from both cost and technical standpoints. In it's
place, he envisions a single world-wide fiber link, common to
all, and operating more akin to an ethernet cable than a
switched network. The implications for BBSing are profound. If
all computer-to-computer communication is "local", and every BBS
in the net is connected in real-time to every other computer in
the the net (*including the users*!), just what purpose would
policy 4 serve? Indeed, what purpose would the sysop or the BBS
serve? The entire structure of everything we do will be
radically changed.
Personally, I would put more credence in Mr. Guilder's vision
than in the vision of policy 5 ever becoming reality <S>.
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 3 24 May 1993
========================================================================
Articles
========================================================================
Subject: The lies of Derek Balling
From: Richard Ploski (1:272/74)
To: Editors (1:221/192)
I just read your post concerning Derek Balling's nonsense - I
had no idea that it had spread further than this net, and am
saddened to see that the twisted facts, which he insists are
true, continue spreading.
I too am relatively new to net 272, and the net I see is much
different than the one which Derek has created in imaginary
world of evil fascists and other horrible people who are `out to
get him'.
My experience with Janis Kracht, our NC has been nothing but
positive. In my early days in the net, several months ago, I was
running an early beta of VFido (the VBBS FIDO interface) and was
impressed by her support and willingness to help me. And while
she did give me a certain time period in which I had to `get
compatible with the network' I did not see this as being
dictatorial, but rather as a sensible move by an NC who was
working with the best interests of the network in mind.
I too was faced with the long distance calls which Derek
complained about. But unlike Derek I did not just decide to do
whatever I wanted and tell Janis if she did not like it too bad
- instead I approached my netmail server and asked if I could
pick up the two local nets from him. He was agreeable and
together we approached Janis and my echomail server, Anthony
Grillo, who gave their blessing to the switch. Sorry, but Derek
wants you to believe that he is the rebel-saviour of net 272,
but it seems that he is more akin to Don Quixote, chasing demons
of his own creation.
Derek chose to publicly, and quite rudely, do whatever he wanted
without regard to the wishes of the NC and _other members_ of
the net. He was asked to stop a number of times - he refused,
claiming that we were the dupes of an evil fascist regime and
that he would save us all. He also publicly refused to acceed
to the NC's requests to cease and desist and would not listen to
reason if it conflicted with his distorted perception of the
reality here in the network.
Net 272 is now in a wonderful state of evolution - the polling
system is being changed dramatically and soon there will be no
one who will have to make a LD call to pick up echos. But you
see, Derek wanted to be in charge, Derek wanted Janis and the
rest of us to bow to *his* wishes and acceed to *his* ideas -
and rather than `play ball' with the rest of us, he wanted to
rewrite the rules and create his own game. And to be perfectly
honest, I much prefer Fidonet to `Derek BallingNET'.
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 4 24 May 1993
I am saddened to see that this nonsense has gone this far...
Best Regards,
Richard Ploski
Delusions of Grandeur 1:272/74
*CC: Doug Mclean @1:255/9 FIDOnet *CC: Editors @1:1/23 FIDOnet
*CC: Janis Kracht @1:272/0 FIDOnet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Requesting a Fidonet Number?
By: Robert Diepenbrock (1:2330/18)
My Experiences in obtaining a Fidonet node number (As Policy 4 Turns!)
The experience of obtaining a Fidonet node number varies, almost as
much as there are people in this net. Where my experience may differ
from the normal run of the mill, I'd like to relate some specifics,
and make some comments about my experiences.
My fidonet story starts in January 1991, when I purchased my computer
system. When I unpacked the 386/dx 25, loaded the modem and my
personnel copy of Procom, little did I know the headaches and triumphs
that awaited. Most can relate to my quest, first to run my own BBS
and then to join Fidonet. Through seemingly endless hardware additions
and modem initialization string changes while trying to configure 4
different software packages concurrently I finally managed to meet the
Requirements of sending and receiving netmail. I owe much of this
achievement to the help of a handful of sysops who basically did most
of the work via a DOS doorway in my BBS. The early days were fraught
with errors, down time, lost mail, late nights, and a few days off of
work, but through all my problems the local sysops remained supportive
and helpful. The local sysops made entry into Fidonet an encouraging
experience. But then, I moved.
Barely 6 months after receiving my node number, I had to move to
continue my education. Almost 2 years goes by before I can arrange to
have a phone hooked to my computer. Again, as before, the Fidonet bug
bite begin to cry for access to netmail. I had been calling some
local boards by this time, using my off-line reader but Oh to have
access to direct netmail once again. You see, I like the religious
echoes and I found some of the limits within them to be constraining.
Though I attempted to stay within the guidelines, I longed for the days
of old when I could just netmail folks to get the discussion out of the
public grandstanding which often takes place on those echoes. My
problem was that the phone line I was using was not mine, and nobody
could call me direct. I could send and receive netmail, but I could
not maintain a fidonet compatible mailer that anybody could call. I
applied for a node number but was turned down, and rightly so.
In the mean time, the local sysops are being generous and are starting
to receive some of the type of echo I was interested in. Yes, I turned
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 5 24 May 1993
into that old echomail junky self I once knew. Though I rarely posted
more than 4 messages a day, I would read sometimes over 200. Once you
start to read that many messages, you quickly learn the value of your
time. My reading (and replying) was eventually limited to 3 echoes.
I settled into having some brisk theological discussions which I enjoy.
Now, I don't think I'm unreasonable (but who does?) I do, however,
have some firm opinions. You guessed it, there was trouble in paradise.
Though the echo's rules may stipulate "anybody can voice their opinion,"
don't believe it. There was a certain echo, which did not allow flames
but the moderation staff generally did what they pleased regardless of
the rules. Many were roasted and when they replied with disrespect,
were promptly banished. I was toasted a few times along with the
others who disagreed with the theology of the moderation staff. For
the most part I ignored the hot parts of the posts, remained calm and
continued the discussions, leaving the flaming issue alone. It was
unfair, I did not like it, but what option did I have without netmail?
You take the good with the bad sometimes. I bet you can guess what
happens next... Yes, I was eventualy banished from that echo for what
was apparently theological reasons (no actual reason was given by the
moderator). Boy, I really wanted netmail then. Perhaps it was good
I had to wait a few weeks or the moderator's inbound netmail would have
been blazing. After all, one good flame deserves another, even if it
is not a good idea to stir the fire once you pour gasoline on it. Oh
how I longed for netmail!
But alas my dreams began to be realized once again! Upon moving into a
new office at work (with a new computer) the possibility of running a
Fidonet node became a reality once again. After scarping up a 2400
baud modem and the backups of my old BBS, I set to work. A lot of
stuff has changed in 2 years! I had to upgrade most of my software,
and just flat change the rest! With a little help from my former Net
Coordinator and a local sysop I was up and running again. Off went
the node number request, and I begin to poll daily for replies. None.
A few phone calls to the local Net Coordinator still produced little in
response and in fact I seemed to get some resistance. What was going
on?
Looking back, I understand. It's not very often that someone gets
banished from an echo. They were being careful, though the reasons
they gave for delaying were rather lame against policy 4. After a talk
with my old NC, I net-mailed the node request again, only this time
making it clear that I had read policy 4 and expected a reason if I was
to be turned down. (Yes, I'm a little bull headed sometimes.) I
received my node number and have been mostly happy with fidonet ever
since, except for one small thing. (Don't tell me you see it coming!)
Yes, I went and did it. I contacted the moderator of the echo from
which I was banished, BIG mistake. I resisted the urge to bring out
the blow torch and hold his "feet over the fire" but I did voice my
complaint about not being told exactly why I was banished and his
apparent violation of his own "no flame" policy. The next day or two
passes and I find out that this guy is trying to get my node number
revoked by contacting my local NC! I may sometimes act like a "twit"
but did I qualify for this? All my netmail in an effort to work this
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 6 24 May 1993
out has gone unanswered to this point, but are you suprised? Did I
deserve this? No, but I should have avoided it! One nice thing about
Fidonet is you can choose to ignore some, without turning all off.
His system now hangs up on mine, guess that ends the discussion.
Though my experiences with fidonet members vary from friendly to
hateful, I must say that it has been a good experience overall.
People with differant views abound, besides if two agree on everything
one is not necessary. In the future I look forward to working within
fidonet and doing my part to return the favor of those sysops from my
original net who helped me out and ignored my mistakes, by helping
other fledgling fidonet sysops get their start, and put up with their
mistakes while they too learn. Thanks to all the members who labor
to keep this network running, growing and progressing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensible BBS names in the Nodelist
Keeping the NODELIST down to size
by Terry Bowden 3:772/20 NC 772 Auckland New Zealand
When new nodes approach me to join FidoNet, they give me the
suggested title of their BBS to go into the nodelist. This
is a free world, and so long as the title isn't obnoxiously
profane, they can call it what they like. Of course, a name
like This_is_my_own_BBS_and_I'm_proud_of_it would be a bit
excessive, and I'd ask the newcomer to re-think.
Now the nodelist is a listing of bulletin board systems, right?
And every entry is a BBS, let's face it. So when I'm asked to
list a newcomer as The_Lantern_BBS, I generally suggest that
"_BBS" is not necessary. Then again, do you really need "The_"
at the front as well? 99 out of 100 tend to agree with this,
so we end up with the title "Lantern".
May I suggest that users and coordinators take this approach?
Unless there is some really burning reason to include the
superfluous (not to mention redundant) parts of the titles,
let's keep them brief. We might just save some electronic trees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Sharing Ripoffs & Other Assorted Tidbits
by: Phillip M. Dampier
1:2613/228
In response to the article from Derek Balling in last week's Fidonews,
let me offer the following views based on my experiences as a Net
Coordinator in a Region 13 net for over two years.
First, let me touch on cost sharing matters. The gouging is still
continuing in many nets. Nodes need to add up the numbers for
themselves. We are currently receiving well over 500 echos in
Net 2613 and our total phone bill with MCI Primetime (without
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 7 24 May 1993
Friends & Family as we connect with an RHUB that is not F&F
compatible) is around $200.00. Ask how many echos your net imports
and then add up your cost sharing x the number of nodes in your net,
if you have a flat rate system in place.
In many cases, the results will be staggering. There are some nets
out there that charge a flat 5-10 dollars a month and have close to
or over 100 nodes. Unless these nets are calling weekday afternoons
for their mail, it's time to start questioning where the $500-1000
goes every month. It sure isn't going to MCI Friends & Family!
Those people subjected to long distance rates AND cost sharing are
prime candidates for net formation if they reside in a local/reduced
rate calling area.
It has been my personal experience that Bill Andrus, our RC, will
grant net status to a small handful of nodes.
Those of you in Net 272 who want to split have been talking about
it since Moses walked on the earth. :-) In Region 13, here's how it
works:
Step 1 (Ross Perotism): Get the people who want to split together
at a meeting, draw up a list of candidates to run for Net Coordinator
and Net Echomail Coordinator, have a free and fair election among
all nodes qualified to vote in your new net, then have the Net
Coordinator draw up a nodelist segment and rough sense of what
your net will encompass as far as area.
Step 2: Have your newly elected NC crashmail a copy of the nodelist
fragment to both Ms. Kracht and Mr. Andrus. It has been my personal
experience in dealing with breakaway nets in Region 13 that Bill
Andrus will immediately grant a net number to the breakaway group.
When you are granted your net number, have the elected NC contact
your existing NC and tell her to remove those people in the new net
from her nodelist update.
The basic reality is that she has very little say over the
formation of new nets in your area. The reality in Region 13 is
that Bill Andrus decides.
You have an excellent case if there is a group of you in a local
calling area that could save considerably on cost sharing.
The other simple truth in Region 13 is that filing policy complaints
is a complete waste of time. Bill Andrus doesn't want to waste
time getting involved in personality disputes, so just drop that
matter and get on with the business of getting a new net and your
number reinstated.
While I don't know both sides of the story surrounding your
dismissal from Fidonet, if the things you quoted were true, this
would be one of the more bizarre set of rules I've seen in
Fidonet and none of them are grounds for dismissal in Fidonet.
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 8 24 May 1993
Finally, you were wrong to have installed a commercial copy of Frontdoor
on your system. I just don't buy your explanation, considering the
number of references to the "commercial" vs. "non-commercial" software
that make both versions distinct. I am glad to hear you did switch
back to the non-commercial version.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Employment Commission (update)
I read with excitement the article regarding the TEA-HR BBS in
F I D O N E W S -- Vol.10 No.19 (10-May-1993). Unfortunately,
there were a couple of criticial errors. Maybe you would be willing
to republish the article or the corrections:
1. The organization is the Texas Education Agency (State Board of
Education and State Education Department). Also, our net/node
number has been changed due to a local conflict to 1:382/6.
Texas Employment Commission
Larry Loiselle (1:382/16)
Texas Education Agency
1701 North Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas 78701
The Texas Education Agency has embarked on an aggressive
recruitment program in order to reach the broadest possible
population. In order to accomplish this mission, the agency
will be posting its job vacancies with the Texas Employment
Commission and the twenty Education Service Centers.
We will also be posting our job vacancies on TENET and the
following public bulletin board system (BBS) networks:
FidoNet (Jobs-Now message echo), FamilyNet (Jobseek message
echo), and KesherNet (Education echo). The messages (job
vacancy notices) posted on these networks are gated to EchoNet,
UseNet, and InterNet. TENET may be accessed at (512) 472-0602.
Public BBSes carrying FidoNet, FamilyNet, and KesherNet message
echos can be found all across the U.S.A., Canada, and many foreign
countries. These public BBSes may be found in most major cities
and many smaller communities.
To assist those who do not have access to these TENET or these
public BBSes, the Texas Education Agency, Human Resource Division,
is running its own BBS:
TEA-HR BBS
(512) 475-3689
300-9600 Baud N-8-1
V32, V42, V42bis
24 hours per day
7 days per week
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 9 24 May 1993
FidoNet Net/Node Number: 1:382/6
FamilyNet Net/Node Number: 8:71/5
Please call our BBS at your convenience. Information on
types of jobs, salaries, and fringe benefits is available.
The current job vacancy notices are available for review and
downloading. You may also receive and/or leave messages for
the Human Resources Division. Also, you will be able to
download copies of the job vacancy notices and upload copies
of your resumes to us.
3. If they want to mail us their resumes, please send them, plus
a cover letter noting where they heard the news and what kind
of job they are seeking. We would appreciate some feedback on
our effort. Letters and/or messages can be addressed to
Lisa Adame, Recruiter; Harvester Pope, Director of Employment;
or Dr. Roberto Zamora, Chief Of Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What Is StormNet?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
******* **** *
* * * *
******* ***** **** **** ***** * * * **** *****
* * * * **** * * * * * * ** *
******* * **** * * * * * * **** **** *
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I would take the time to write about out network, StormNet.
* What Is StormNet?
StormNet is an alternative network for use with FidoNet compatible
or QWK network software. We pass messages back and forth both in
netmail and in echomail conferences. In StormNet, each node is
welcomed and assisted in many ways by other StormNet members. We
have active echomail areas and a growing file echo selection.
Although the traffic in our echo areas is lower than in some other
networks, StormNet has a more friendly atmosphere than can be found
in many of those others.
StormNet has been in existence for just over a year, and in that
time, has grown significantly. Our membership has changed from an
inexperienced group of local nodes to a more mature group of people
from all over the United States, and even parts of Canada.
Currently, we have over 50 nodes in this area, and are expanding
every week!
* Why is StormNet here?
StormNet was started for a few reasons. When we created it, we
wanted to serve teens, adults, and others worldwide with a quality
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 10 24 May 1993
alternative network that is relatively cheap to pull in. Most of our
high speed transfers take less than a minute. You don't have to poll
every day, we are flexible and will allow you to poll whenever you
like. We want to serve you with the finest quality echomail and
files for you and your users. We are considerably smaller than
FidoNet, and therefore do not have the overflow of mail often seen in
its conferences.
* What are the rules like?
StormNet? Rules? You've got to be kidding me. Well, it's not
like we don't have any rules; all of the rules in our policy
statement basically stem from one basic principle - "Be nice and use
common sense." The policy's specifics were written to outline some
problems which may potentially arise when people aren't nice and
don't use common sense.
The SNAC (StormNet Advisory Council) consists of teenagers and
adults. This group of fine folks helps to ensure the smooth running
of StormNet affairs. StormNet does not discriminate against, deny,
or turn someone down because of their age, sex, national origin,
religion, sexual orientation, beliefs, taste in food, opinion on
world politics, or favorite color. We welcome anyone who is
interested in joining a fun network to try out StormNet. We also
don't allow "bashing", spindling or other forms of mutilation of
groups in our newsletters, or most of our echos, and other parts of
our network.
* What are the echos like?
We have a variety of conferences to suit most needs. If you are
a user of StormNet, or a node, you can request an echo if you feel it
would be active. We have echos on many subjects, A to Z (as we say
SN_A to SN_Z <g>). We have a talented staff of moderators and
co-moderators, and combined with the efforts of our international
echomail coordinator, keep the network running smoothly.
* What are the file echos like?
We offer file echos for our nodes too. Although we will not go
into this matter much in this article, we have great files from all
around. We don't allow trash to be hatched in our echos. Our file
echo coordinator helps to coordinate our file echos.
* Nodelists, Policies, and Newsfiles..
Our nodelist coordinator is dedicated to his nodelist
management. He strives to make sure the nodelist that is released is
as accurate as possible. The nodelist coordinator has never secretly
switched the nodelist for new Folgers' Crystals :-)
Our Literature Coordinator updates the policy and creates
"StormNews", the official newsletter of StormNet. He also edits
carefully other documents for StormNet.
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 11 24 May 1993
In almost all cases, our nodelists and nodediffs are issued by
Friday at 12am. In fact, we usually issue most periodicals before
the Friday deadline. To make less calls necessary, all of StormNet's
documents are released at about the same time.
* Why should I consider StormNet?
We respect each and every StormNet member and his/her rights.
We offer our services to all. We are have a great network setup. We
want all to join and have a good time in the network that we have
created. We're proud of our network. You should look into us!
Alan Jurison
StormNet Int'l EchoMail Coordinator
Philip Spevak
StormNet International Coordinator
You May F'req STORMNET (or STORMNET.*) From these nodes:
System Name Phone/Baud Fido StormNet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
StormNet Int'l HQ (315)682-1824 (1:260/375) (181:181/1) 14400/v32b
StormNet Coord. (315)445-5643 (1:260/374) (181:181/0) 2400
StormNet Canada (613)563-7164 (1:163/527) (182:1820/0) 9600/HST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* See our Ads in FidoNet's OTHERNETS confrence for more polling sites *
Thank you! Hope to see you soon!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dark Fibre, Dumb Network
George Gilder / MCI ID: 409-1174
....CONTINUED FROM LAST ISSUE
LAW OF THE TELECOSM: NETWORKS DUMB AS A STONE
The new regime will use fiber not as a replacement for copper
wires but as a new form of far more capacious and error-free air.
Through a system called wavelength division multiplexing and access,
computers and telephones will tune into desired messages in the
fibersphere the same way radios now tune into desired signals in the
atmosphere. The fibersphere will be intrinsically as dumb and dark
as the atmosphere.
The new regime overcomes the electronic bottleneck by altogether
banishing electronics from the network. But, ask the telcos in
unison, what about the switches? As long as the network is switched,
it must be partly electronic. Unless the network is switched, it is
not a true any- to-any network. It is a broadcast system. It may
offer a cornucopia of services. But it cannot serve as a common
carrier like the phone network allowing any party to reach any other.
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 12 24 May 1993
Without intelligent switching it cannot provide personal
communications nets that can follow you wherever you go. Without
intelligent switching, the all optical network, so they say, is just
a glorified cable system.
These critics fail to grasp a central rule of the telecosm:
bandwidth is a nearly perfect substitute for switching. With
sufficient physical bandwidth, it is possible to simulate any kind of
logical switch whatsoever. Bandwidth allows creation of virtual
switches that to the user seem to function exactly the way physical
switches do. You can send all messages everywhere in the network,
include all needed codes and instructions for correcting, decrypting,
and reading them, and allow each terminal to tune into its own
messages on its own wavelength, just like a two-way radio. When the
terminals are smart enough and the bandwidth great enough, your all
optical network can be as dumb as a stone.
Over the last several years, all optical network experiments
have been conducted around the world, from Bellcore in New Jersey to
NTT at Yokosuka, Japan. British Telecom has used wavelength division
multiplexing to link four telephone central offices in London.
Columbia's Telecom Center has launched a Teranet that lacks tunable
lasers or receivers but can logically simulate them. Bell
Laboratories has generated most of the technology but as a long
distance specialist has focussed on the project of sending gigabits
of information thousands of miles without amplifiers. But only fully
functional system is the Rainbow created by Paul Green at IBM.
As happens so often in this a world of technical disciplines
sliced into arbitrary fortes and fields, the large advances come from
the integrators. Paul Green is neither a laser physicist, nor an
optical engineer, nor a telecommunications theorist. At IBM, his
work has ranged from overseeing speech recognition projects at Watson
Labs to shaping company strategy at corporate headquarters in Armonk.
His most recent success was supervising development of the new APPN
(Advanced Peer to Peer Network) protocol. According to an IBM
announcement in March, APPN will replace the venerable SNA (systems
network architecture) that has been synonymous with IBM networking
for more than a decade.
Green took some pride in this announcement, but by that time,
the project was long in his past. He was finishing the copy editing
on his magisterial tome on Fiber Optic Networks (published this
summer by Prentice Hall). And he was moving on to more advanced
versions of the Rainbow which he and his team had introduced in
December 1991 at the Telecom 91 Conference in Geneva and which has
been installed between the various branches of Watson Laboratories in
Westchester County, N.Y.
As Peter Drucker points out, a new technology cannot displace an
old one unless it is proven at least 10 times better. Otherwise the
billions of dollars worth of installed base and thousands of
engineers committed to improving the old technology will suffice to
block the new one. The job of Paul Green's 15 man team at IBM is to
meet that tenfold test.
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 13 24 May 1993
Green's all optical network creates a fibersphere as neutral and
passive as the atmosphere. It can be addressed by computers the same
way radios and television sets connect to the air. Consisting
entirely of unpowered glass and passive spitters and couplers, the
fibersphere is dark and dumb. Any variety of terminals can
interconnect across it at the same time using any protocols they
choose.
Just as radios in the atmosphere, computer receivers connected
to the fibersphere do not find a series of bits in a message; they
tune into a wavelength or frequency. Because available Fabry Perot
tunable filters today have larger bandwidth than tunable lasers,
Green chose to locate Rainbow's tuning at the receiver and have
transmitters each operate at a fixed wavelength. But future networks
can use any combination of tunable equipment at either end.
When Green began the project in 1987, the industry stood in the
same general position as the pioneers of radio in the early years of
that industry. They had seemingly unlimited bandwidth before them,
but lacked transmitters and receivers powerful enough to use it
effectively. Radio transmitters suffered splitting losses as they
broadcast their signals across the countryside. Green's optical
messages lose power everytime they are split off to be sent to
another terminal or are tapped by a receiver.
The radio industry solved this problem by the development of the
audion triode amplifier. Green needed an all optical amplifier to
replace the optoelectronic repeaters that now constitute the most
widespread electronic bottleneck in fiber. Amplifiers in current
fiber networks first convert the optical signal to an electronic
signal, enhance it, and then convert it back to photons.
Like the pioneers of radio, Green soon had his amplifier in
hand. Following concepts pioneered by David Payne at the University
of Southhampton in England, a Bell Laboratories group led by Emmanuel
Desurvire and Randy Giles developed a workable all optical device.
They showed that a short stretch of fiber doped with erbium, a rare
earth mineral, and excited by a cheap laser diode, can function as a
powerful amplifier over the entire wavelength range of a 25,000
gigahertz system. Today such photonic amplifiers enhance signals in a
working system of links between Naples and Pomezia on the west coast
of Italy. Manufactured in packages between two and three cubic
inches in size, these amplifiers fit anywhere in an optical network
for enhancing signals without electronics.
This invention overcame the most fundamental disadvantage of
optical networks compared to electronic networks. You can tap into
an electronic network as often as desired without weakening the
voltage signal. Although resistance and capacitance will weaken the
current, there are no splitting losses in a voltage divider.
Photonic signals, by contrast, suffer splitting losses every time
they are tapped; they lose photons until eventually there are none
left. The cheap and compact all optical amplifier solves this
problem.
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 14 24 May 1993
Not only did Green and his IBM colleagues create working all
optical networks, they also reduced the interface optoelectronics to
a single microchannel plug-in card that can fit in any IBM PS/2 level
personal computer or R6000 workstation. Using off-the-shelf
components costing a total of $16,000 per station, Rainbow achieved a
capacity more than 90 times greater than FDDI at an initial cost
merely four times as much.
Just as Jack Kilby's first ICs were not better than previous
adders and oscillators, the Rainbow I is not better in some respects
than rival networks based on electronics. At present it connects
only 32 computers at a speed of some 300 megabits per second, for a
total bandwidth of 9.5 gigabits. This rate is huge compared to most
other networks, but it is still well below the target of a system
that provides gigabit rates for every terminal.
A more serious limitation is the lack of packet switching.
Rather than communicating down a dedicated connection between two
parties, like phones do, computer networks send data in small
batches, called packets, each bearing its own address. This requires
switching back and forth between packets millions of times a second.
Neither the current Rainbow's lasers nor its filters can tune from
one message to another more than thousands of times a second. This
limitation is a serious problem for links to mainframes and
supercomputers that may do many tasks at once in different windows on
the screen and with connections to several other machines.
As Green shows, however, all these problems are well on the way
to solution. A tide of new interest in all optical systems is
sweeping through the world's optical laboratories. The Pentagon's
Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) has launched a program for
all optical networking. With Green installed as the new President of
the IEEE Communications Society, the technical journals are full of
articles on new wavelength division technology. Every few months
brings new reports of a faster laser with a broader bandwidth, or
filter with faster tuning, or an ingenious new way to use bandwidth
to simulate packet switching. Today lasers and receivers can switch
fast enough but they still lack the ability to cover the entire
bandwidth needed.
The key point, however, is that as demonstrated both in Geneva
and Armonk, the Green system showed the potential efficiency of all
optical systems. Even in their initial forms they are more cost
effective in bandwidth per dollar than any other network technology.
Scheduled for introduction within the next two years, Rainbow III
will comprise a thousand stations operating at a gigabit a second,
with the increasingly likely hope of fast packet switching
capability. At that point, the system will be a compelling
commercial product at least hundreds of times more cost effective
than the competition.
Without access to dark fiber, however, these networks will be
worthless. If the telephone companies fail to supply it, they risk
losing most of the fastest growing parts of their business: the data
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 15 24 May 1993
traffic which already contributes some 50 percent of their profits.
But there is also a possibility that they will lose much of their
potential consumer business as well: the planned profits in
pay-per-view films and electronic yellow pages. This is the message
of a second great prophet of dark fiber, Will Hicks of Southbridge,
Massachusetts.
A venerable inventor of scores of optical products, Hicks
believes that Green's view of the future of fiber is too limited.
Using wavelength division, Hicks can see the way to deliver some 500
megahertz two-way connections to all the homes in America for some
$400 per home. That is fifty times the 10 megahertz total capacity
of an Ethernet (with no one else using it) for some 20 percent of the
cost. That is capacity in each home for twenty digital two-way HDTV
channels at once at perhaps half the cost of new telephone
connections. Then, after a large consumer market emerges for fiber
optics, Hicks believes, Green's sophisticated computer services will
follow as a matter of course.
The consumer market, Hicks maintains, is the key to lowering the
cost of the components to a level where they can be widely used in
office networks as well. He cites the example of the compact disk
laser diode. Once lasers were large and complex devices, chilled with
liquid nitrogen, and costing thousands of dollars; now they are as
small as a grain of salt, cheap as a box of cereal, and more numerous
than phonograph needles. An executive at Hitachi told Hicks that
Hitachi could work a similar transformation on laser diodes and
amplifiers for all optical networks. Just tell me what price you want
to pay and I'll tell you how many you have to buy.
The divergence of views between the IBM executive and the
wildcat inventor, however, is far less significant than their common
vision of dark fiber as the future of communications. By the power
of ever cheaper bandwidth, it will transform all industries of the
coming information age just as radically as the power of cheaper
transistors transformed the industries of the computer age.
For the telephone companies, the age of ever smarter terminals
mandates the emergence of ever dumber networks. This is a major
strategic challenge; it takes a smart man to build a dumb network.
But the telcos have the best laboratories and have already developed
nearly all the components of the fibersphere.
Telephone companies may complain of the large costs of the
transformation of their system, but they command capital budgets as
large as the total revenues of the cable industry. Telcos may recoil
in horror at the idea of dark fiber, but they command webs of the
stuff ten times larger than any other industry. Dumb and dark
networks may not fit the phone company self-image or advertising
posture. But they promise larger markets than the current phone
company plan to choke off their future in the labyrinthine nets of an
intelligent switching fabric always behind schedule and full of
software bugs.
The telephone companies cannot expect to impose a uniform
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 16 24 May 1993
network governed by universal protocols. The proliferation of
digital protocols and interfaces is an inevitable effect of the
promethean creativity of the computer industry. Green explains, You
cannot fix the protocol zoo. You must use bandwidth to accommodate
the zoo.
As Robert Pokress, a former switch designer at Bell Labs now
head of Unifi Corporation, points out, telephone switches (now 80
percent software) are already too complex to keep pace with the
efflorescence of relatively simple computer technology on their
periphery. While computers become ever more lean and mean, turning
to reduced instruction set processors, networks need to adopt reduced
instruction set architectures. The ultimate in dumb and dark is the
fibersphere now incubating in their magnificent laboratories.
The entrepreneurial folk in the computer industry may view this
wrenching phone company adjustment with some satisfaction. But the
fact is that computer companies face a strategic reorientation as
radical as the telcos do. In a world where ever smarter terminals
require ever dumber communications, computer networks are as gorged
and glutted with smarts as phone company networks and even less
capacious. The nation's most brilliant nerds, commanding the 200
MIPS Silicon Graphics superstations or Mac Quadra multimedia power
plants, humbly kneel before the 50 kilobit lines of the Internet and
beseech the telcos to upgrade to 64 kilobit basic ISDN.
Now addicted to the use of transistors to solve the problems of
limited bandwidth, the computer industry must use transistors to
exploit the opportunities of nearly unlimited bandwidth. When
home-based machines are optimized for manipulating high resolution
digital video at high speeds, they will necessarily command what are
now called supercomputer powers. This will mean that the dominant
computer technology will emerge first not in the office market but in
the consumer market. The major challenge for the computer industry
is to change its focus from a few hundred million offices already
full of computer technology to a billion living rooms now nearly
devoid of it.
Cable companies possess the advantage of already owning dumb
networks based on the essentials of the all optical model of
broadcast and select-- of customers seeking wavelengths or
frequencies rather than switching circuits. Cable companies already
provide all the programs to all the terminals and allow them to tune
in to the desired messages. Uniquely in the world, U.S. cable firms
already offer a broadband pipe to ninety percent of American homes.
These coaxial cables, operating at one gigahertz for several hundred
feet, provide the basis for two way broadband services today. But
the cable industry cannot become a full service supplier of
telecommunications until it changes its self-image from a cheap
provider of one way entertainment services into a common carrier of
two way information. Above all, the cable industry cannot succeed in
the digital age if it continues to regard the personal computer as an
alien and irrelevant machine.
Analogous to the integrated circuit in its economic power, the
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 17 24 May 1993
all optical network is analogous to the massively parallel computer
in its technical paradigm. In the late 1980s in computers, the
effort to make one processor function ever faster on a serial stream
of data reached a point of diminishing returns. Superpipelining and
superscalar gains hit their limits. Despite experiments with
Josephson Junctions, high electron mobility, and cryogenics, usable
transistors simply could not made to switch much faster than a few
gigahertz.
Computer architects responded by creating machines with multiple
processors operating in parallel on multiple streams of data. While
each processor worked more slowly than the fastest serial processors,
thousands of slow processors in parallel could far outperform the
fastest serial machines. Measured by cost effectiveness, the
massively parallel machines dwarfed the performance of conventional
supercomputers.
The same pattern arose in communications and for many of the
same reasons. In the early 1990s the effort to increase the number
of bits that could be time division multiplexed down a fiber on a
single frequency band had reached a point of diminishing returns.
Again the switching speed of transistors was the show stopper. The
architects of all optical networks responded by creating systems
which can use not one wavelength or frequency but potentially
thousands in parallel.
Again, the new systems could not outperform time division
multiplexing on one frequency. But all optical networks opened up a
vast vista of some 75 thousand gigahertz of frequencies potentially
usable for communications. That immense potential of massively
parallel frequencies left all methods of putting more bits on a
single set of frequencies look as promising as launching computers
into the chill of outer space in order to accelerate their switching
speeds.
Just as the law of the microcosm made all terminals smart,
distributing intelligence from the center to the edges of the
network, so the law of the telecosm creates a network dumb enough to
accommodate the incredible onrush of intelligence on its periphery.
Indeed, with the one chip supercomputer on the way, manufacturable
for under a hundred dollars toward the end of the decade, the law of
the microcosm is still gaining momentum. The fibersphere complements
the promise of ubiquitous computer power with equally ubiquitous
communications.
What happens, however, when not only transistors but also wires
are nearly free? As Robert Lucky observes in his forward to Paul
Green's book, Many of us have been conditioned to think that
transmission is inherently expensive; that we should use switching
and processing wherever possible to minimize transmission. This is
the law of the microcosm. But as Lucky speculates, The limitless
bandwidth of fiber optics changes these assumptions. Perhaps we
should transmit signals thousands of miles to avoid even the simplest
processing function. This is the law of the telecosm: use bandwidth
to simplify everything else.
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 18 24 May 1993
Daniel Hillis of Thinking Machines Corporation offers a similar
vision, adding to Lucky's insight the further assertion that
massively parallel computer architectures are so efficient that they
can overthrow the personal computer revolution. Hillis envisages a
powerplant computer model, with huge Thinking Machines at the center
tapped by millions of relatively dumb terminals.
All these speculations assume that the Law of the Telecosm
usurps the Law of the Microcosm. But in fact the two concepts
function in different ways in different domains.
Electronic transistors use electrons to control, amplify, or
switch electrons. But photonics differ radically from electronics.
Because moving photons do not affect one another on contact, they
cannot readily be used to control, amplify, or switch each other.
Compared to electrons, moreover, photons are huge: infrared photons
at 1550 or 1300 nanometers are larger than a micron across. They
resist the miniaturization of the microcosm. For computing, photons
are far inferior to electrons. With single electron electronics now
in view, electrons will keep their advantage. For the foreseeable
future, computers will be made with electrons.
What are crippling flaws for photonic computing, however, are
huge assets for communicating. Because moving photons do not collide
with each other or respond to electronic charges, they are inherently
a two way medium. They are immune to lightning strikes,
electromagnetic pulses, or electrical power surges that destroy
electronic equipment. Virtually noiseless and massless pulses of
radiation, they move as fast and silently as light.
Listening to the technology, as Caltech prophet Carver Mead
recommends, one sees a natural division of labor between photonics
and electronics. Photonics will dominate communications and
electronics will dominate computing. The two technologies do not
compete; they are beautiful complements of each other.
The law of the microcosm makes distributed computers (smart
terminals) more efficient regardless of the cost of linking them
together. The law of the telecosm makes dumb and dark networks more
efficient regardless of how numerous and smart are the terminals.
Working together, however, these two laws of wires and switches impel
ever more widely distributed information systems.
It is the narrow bandwidth of current phone company connections
that explains the persistence of centralized computing in a world of
distributed machines. Narrowband connections require smart
interfaces and complex protocols and expensive data. Thus you get
your online information from only a few databases set up to
accommodate queries over the phone lines. You limit television
broadcasting to a few local stations. Using the relatively
narrowband phone network or television system, it pays to concentrate
memory and processing at one point and tap into the hub from
thousands of remote locations.
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 19 24 May 1993
Using a broadband fiber system, by contrast, it will pay to
distribute memory and services to all points on the network.
Broadband links will foster specialization. If the costs of
communications are low, databases, libraries, and information
services can specialize and be readily reached by customers from
anywhere. On line services lose the economies of scale that lead a
firm such as Dialog to attempt to concentrate most of the world's
information in one set of giant archives.
By making bandwidth nearly free, the new integrated circuit of
the fibersphere will radically change the environment of all
information industries and technologies. In all eras, companies tend
to prevail by maximizing the use of the cheapest resources. In the
age of the fibersphere, they will use the huge intrinsic bandwidth of
fiber, all 25 thousand gigahertz or more, to replace nearly all the
hundreds of billions of dollars worth of switches, bridges, routers,
converters, codecs, compressors, error correctors, and other devices,
together with the trillions of lines of software code, that pervade
the intelligent switching fabric of both telephone and computer
networks.
The makers of all this equipment will resist mightily. But
there is no chance that the old regime can prevail by fighting cheap
and simple optics with costly and complex electronics and software.
The all optical network will triumph for the same reason that
the integrated circuit triumphed: it is incomparably cheaper than the
competition. Today, measured by the admittedly rough metric of MIPS
per dollar, a personal computer is more than one thousand times more
cost effective than a mainframe. Within 10 years, the all optical
network will be millions of times more cost effective than electronic
networks. Just as the electron rules in computers, the photon will
rule the waves of communication.
The all optical ideal will not immediately usurp other
technologies. Vacuum tubes reached their highest sales in the late
1970s. But just as the IC inexorably exerted its influence on all
industries, the all optical technology will impart constant pressure
on all other communications systems. Every competing system will
have to adapt to its cost structure. In the end, almost all
electronic communications will go through the wringer and emerge in
glass.
This is the real portent of the dark fiber case wending its way
through the courts. The future of the information age depends on the
rise of dumb and dark networks to accommodate the onrush of ever
smarter electronics. Ultimately at stake is nothing less than the
future of the computer and communications infrastructure of the U.S.
economy, its competitiveness in world markets, and the consummation
of the age of information. Although the phone companies do not want
to believe it, their future will be dark.
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 20 24 May 1993
========================================================================
Fidonews Information
========================================================================
------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ----------------
Editors: Sylvia Maxwell, Donald Tees, Tim Pozar
Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell, Vince Perriello,
Tom Jennings
IMPORTANT NOTE: The FidoNet address of the FidoNews BBS has been
changed!!! Please make a note of this.
"FidoNews" BBS
FidoNet 1:1/23
BBS +1-519-570-4176, 300/1200/2400/14200/V.32bis/HST(DS)
Internet addresses:
Don & Sylvia (submission address)
editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
Sylvia -- max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
Donald -- donald@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
Tim -- pozar@kumr.lns.com
(Postal Service mailing address) (have extreme patience)
FidoNews
172 Duke St. E.
Kitchener, Ontario
Canada
N2H 1A7
Published weekly by and for the members of the FidoNet international
amateur electronic mail system. It is a compilation of individual
articles contributed by their authors or their authorized agents. The
contribution of articles to this compilation does not diminish the
rights of the authors. Opinions expressed in these articles are those
of the authors and not necessarily those of FidoNews.
Authors retain copyright on individual works; otherwise FidoNews is
copyright 1993 Sylvia Maxwell. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or
distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in
other circumstances, please contact the original authors, or FidoNews
(we're easy).
OBTAINING COPIES: The-most-recent-issue-ONLY of FidoNews in electronic
form may be obtained from the FidoNews BBS via manual download or
Wazoo FileRequest, or from various sites in the FidoNet and Internet.
PRINTED COPIES may be obtained from Fido Software for $10.00US each
PostPaid First Class within North America, or $13.00US elsewhere,
mailed Air Mail. (US funds drawn upon a US bank only.)
BACK ISSUES: Available from FidoNet nodes 1:102/138, 1:216/21,
1:125/1212, (and probably others), via filerequest or download
FidoNews 10-21 Page: 21 24 May 1993
(consult a recent nodelist for phone numbers).
A very nice index to the Tables of Contents to all FidoNews volumes
can be filerequested from 1:396/1 or 1:216/21. The name(s) to request
are FNEWSxTC.ZIP, where 'x' is the volume number; 1=1984, 2=1985...
through 8=1991.
INTERNET USERS: FidoNews is available via FTP from ftp.ieee.org, in
directory ~ftp/pub/fidonet/fidonews. If you have questions regarding
FidoNet, please direct them to deitch@gisatl.fidonet.org, not the
FidoNews BBS. (Be kind and patient; David Deitch is generously
volunteering to handle FidoNet/Internet questions.)
SUBMISSIONS: You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in
FidoNews. Article submission requirements are contained in the file
ARTSPEC.DOC, available from the FidoNews BBS, or Wazoo filerequestable
from 1:1/23 as file "ARTSPEC.DOC". Please read it.
"Fido", "FidoNet" and the dog-with-diskette are U.S. registered
trademarks of Tom Jennings, and are used with permission.
Asked what he thought of Western civilization,
M.K. Gandhi said, "I think it would be an excellent idea".
-- END
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink