Slashdot Mirror
AOL Kills Usenet Access
Numair writes "BetaNews is reporting that AOL is about to terminate Usenet access for its users. Now, before everyone starts rejoicing ... where is the Usenet community going to find another large media company to protect it from frivolous copyright lawsuits?"
Usenet died not long after Canter and Siegel. The amount of spam and crossposting just made the signal-to-noise ratio too much.
*sigh* I remember the days where I could catch up on 50 newsgroups in under an hour, reading most of the threads too.
If I need information now, I hit google. If I want to ask a question, I find the appropriate mailing list and send it.
What's with the frivolous link to an ad-riddled page with about two sentences' worth of actual content? Come now /. editors!
... screw it. The Market will deal with it. If users want usenet access, they'll leave and find a better ISP.
But I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that this is not the case, because most consumers just don't think that way. So by extension the whole self-regulating market thing is immediately dead in the water.
Phew. Good job I'm not from the right wing, or else my entire worldview may have been shattered right there
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Let's not knock AOL too much. In all honesty, their simple/stupid model has helped the Internet community grow. Yes this particular brand of Internet users tends to be on the less informed scale, but they spend money - they help the computer industry grow with their wallets.
So remember, AOL caters to the simple/stupid crowd.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
One of the seasonal rhythms of the Usenet used to be the annual September influx of clueless newbies who, lacking any sense of netiquette, made a general nuisance of themselves. This coincided with people starting college, getting their first internet accounts, and plunging in without bothering to learn what was acceptable. These relatively small drafts of newbies could be assimilated within a few months. But in September 1993, AOL users became able to post to Usenet, nearly overwhelming the old-timers' capacity to acculturate them; to those who nostalgically recall the period before, this triggered an inexorable decline in the quality of discussions on newsgroups. Syn. eternal September
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Can't AOL customers simply use a news client like Outlook Distress (heaven forbid) or Free Agent, and then just subscribe to a newsgroup hosting service? If it's text-based groups that you're interested in, there is News.Individual.NET which is free.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
...with thousands of mouth-breathing morons lacking any sense of netiquette, usenet wouldn't need "protection" from frivolous copyright lawsuits.
"Me too! Me too!"
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
So remember, AOL caters to the simple/stupid crowd.
Who is also the crowd that generally has massive amounts of spyware/trojaned/infected PCs used for sending out Viri and Spam. And also the same who respond to spam, buy spam products and think "Gee, I'm really glad my bank is verifying my account information" when they get a phishing e-mail.
Then there are the things the semi "anonymous" accounts are used for and a few other illegal things that people use AOL accounts for. Eliminating the AOL crowd would probably make the internet a safer/saner place to be for the rest of us. Especially when you consider it's also the AOL customers that want the governemnt to "protect tehir children" from online content.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
> See. This is why we should demand e-mail address
> portability. Your e-mail address should follow
> you, not have to stay tied to one isp. We already
> have it for phone numbers, so it shouldn't be too
> hard for e-mail right? I mean, why should you have
> to give up your "identity" just because your ISP
> has decided to charge more for less?
Anybody who had the vaguest clue how the Internet, and in particular DNS and SMTP work would not have written the above.
If you want portable email addresses, get Hotmail or GMail accounts, or buy yerself a domain.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Another thing they have is a national presence. They're portable... meaning you can use it at home or when you travel. One friend of mine uses it for exactly that reason. He lives in one area, travels to another for extended periods of time, and likes the ability to just find a local dial-up number to get to his email. That's all part of his business.
Is this the best? No. Does it provide what he wants? Yes.
Overall, I'm not sure how to feel about this. Part of me is quite elated, because I remember early on when they first granted Usenet access, how flooded with nonsense some of the groups were. There's another part of me that is somewhat disappointed, because I do know a few people who use AOL for their internet access and post regularly and intelligently to some newsgroups. Those are the people I will kindasorta grieve for, but then again, they're generally internet-savvy enough to find other ways to post there.
OCO is Loco
Wow. My killfile will shrink!
Has been predicted before. It's still going. Loosing AOL will hurt... a little. I'm willing to bet any Usenet users on AOL will change ISPs to maintain access to their groups. It will take a long time for usenet to die - especially groups getting 10's of thousands of text posts per day.
-- $G
This is a Bad Thing. It is simply another indicator of USENET's decline. And that's a Bad Thing, because the alternatives (the web-based forums, many of them excellent--let me plug bikeforums.net as a superb example) are all under corporate, rather than community control. They are simply not committed to the same degree of openness and free-as-in-freedom that USENET is.
It is one more sign that the Wild West days of the Internet are coming to an end and the Internet is coming more and more thoroughly under the control of business interests.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
But since nobody owns Usenet--and people post from servers around the world--it's difficult to enforce copyright laws, says Bob Kruger, vice president of enforcement at the Business Software Alliance. The industry group is an outspoken foe of piracy. "It's very difficult to take action against newsgroups," he says. http://tinyurl.com/5uu7t/ PCWorld.com
Now this quote is from 2002, and it is still relevant and applicable.
With the RIAA spoofing files,and sueing anything that moves, http://tinyurl.com/4af7y/ The Daily Texan I wonder how long before they start trying to propogate corrupt files into Usenet, as well. With AOL making it harder to access Usenet (by removing native support) this is removing alot of trash from Usenet and possibly a boon to the Network. All AOL has done is remove the clueless N00b (uninformed user) from the equation, and the more informed AOL user will still have access, yet from a pay Server. http://tinyurl.com/39dtp/a Slycks Guide to Usenet Newsgroups
My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
"Usenet is finally dying its rather long-deserved death."
Whats deserved about it? I still find it a useful discussion forum. Just because some groups are full of spam spouting imbeciles doesn't mean they're all useless and just because you obviously don't use it doesn't mean that there arn't hundreds of thousands if not millions of people out there who still do.
I do wonder if this is a sign.
Now that the largest member of both the RIAA and MPAA no longer has a stake in usenet, AOL can participate in a campaign to break it up, or at least to more heavily police it.
A great feature of usenet for copyright violating is that you can leech all you want and noone will ever know except you and your usenet server.
But that won't matter if they convince Congress to place burdensome requirements on companies that maintain usenet servers.
Of course, there are plenty of good Constitutional and practical arguments against doing that. But who is going to make them. More importantly, who is going to have the kind of clout that's necessary to fight a lobbying effort by these people?
So remember, AOL caters to the simple/stupid crowd.
Thanks for bringing this up. Remember, half of the population has an IQ under 100, by definition.
There are a bunch of self-righteous egotists who hang out here and contend that they just shouldn't have access to technology. That is, of course, bullshit. Including antivirus software with their service is the second best thing AOL has done in a decade (supporting Mozilla being #1).
There needs to be an onramp for the Internet and I don't see anyone else stepping up. Remember - you too were once an annoying helpless newbie!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
So I guess this means they won't be advertising their service as Unlimited Internet Access? Why is it that ISPs no longer actually provide a connection to the Internet but just a connection to port 80? Sorry this is slightly off topic.
From the article:
But the Usenet will nonetheless become a smaller, less interesting place once AOL turns off its newsgroup servers.
What kind of crack is this guy smoking? That's like saying that a nice neighborhood will be smaller and less interesting without all the trailer parks on its fringes. Posts from AOL users tended to be interesting in the same way that "mystery meat" is mysterious.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
But I'll take anything that reduces AOL's Internet presence as a good thing for the Internet.
The people I work with/for spend a fortune on hardware, bandwidth, software, and IT services. Basically, they keep geeks in rent and food. But they do that so that they can run their businesses, and a lot of them rely on B2C transactions over the internet. Take away the 20 million or so AOL users that do indeed shop online and spend money, and that's a nasty hit.
Those people aren't going to go away, and they're not going to get any smarter if they have to go and use MSN or Earthlink, etc. Why not let them spend their $20+/month, and let AOL's customer service people deal with their users' ignorance problems? Better them than the customer service people at my ISP, who I'd rather were dealing with real issues.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
> Anybody who had the vaguest clue how the Internet, and in particular DNS and SMTP work would not have written the above.
Anybody who had the vaguest clue how humor, and in particular sarcasm works, would not have written the above.
"The general contract of the method run is that it may take any action whatsoever." -- Java 2 API
WebTVers are indeed a form of life below AOL. Fortunately, this means that posting to Usenet at all is beyond the vast majority of them. AOLers are more annoying because they are as dumb as it is possible to be and still be able to post to a newsgroup.
Chris Mattern
I don't know any that get OFF the onramp - they just stay within the little AOL world, and have no desire to learn about anything else. They get their email, they have their chat rooms, and the cute little AIM icons.
They stay *right there* and never learn anything.
On Usenet it is bad manners to correct someone over bad grammer and bad spelling.
It's also bad manners to not point out bad grammar and spelling when somebody is flamed for it and they don't realise. He was, in essence, laughing behind your back. I merely pointed out why.
Using bad grammar and spelling means a hell of a lot of people will automatically assume you are an idiot. When you have your mistakes pointed out and you tell everyone you don't care to learn how to speak properly, pretty much everybody with a clue will begin to ignore you.
Write in clear, grammatical, correctly-spelled language
I was going to comment on the same thing. Not only is it only a port 80 connection, but it's DOWNSTREAM ONLY.
I curse you Adelphia, and your stupid rules. If the phone lines in my small town wern't so terrible as to even make 56k not an option, there is no way I'd shell out $57 a month for a nice fast line which is idle 20 hours out of the day.
It sucks out loud that they could be held responsible if I ran some kind of illegal service. If I was selling illegal arms over the telephone could Verizon get in trouble? If I was dealing drugs out of my car, would Chevy get in trouble? If I was running form the cops, did Nike tell me to "Just Do It"?
OK, end of rant. I think someone with money for a good lawyer needs to sue an internet provider for advertising "Unlimited Internet" with all these limitations, take the money and start their own actual "Unlimited Internet" company which will let end users run whatever they want provided they don't A) go over a reasonable bandwidth limit (a message board for a bunch of your buddies to chat on is not unreasonable at ALL) and B) take full responsibility for any services they provide.
Is that too much to ask? Put it in the EULA.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Although it is the result of a bug, one could argue that Slashdot's unique HTML certainly doesn't make Firefox's job any easier.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor