Slashdot Mirror
Cox Discontinues Usenet, Starting In June
Existential Wombat was one of several readers to note that Cox Communcations customers have been put on notice that their Usenet access will soon dry up, unless they want to pay a monthly surcharge for it. From the note that subscribers received: "Effective June 30, 2010, Cox Communications will discontinue Usenet service to our subscribers. Declining newsgroup usage in recent years has highlighted the need to focus our resources on other priorities, such as increasing our Internet speeds and providing new services, including Cox Media Store and Share. We understand that our newsgroup subscribers may want to continue accessing Usenet. Therefore, we have worked with leading newsgroup service provider Giganews to offer special pricing for Cox subscribers."
Gripes Existential Wombat: "$15++ a month for something Cox provided as a part of the service? Of course they will be reducing everyone's monthly tariff by the value of the service they no longer provide. Yeah, right."
better service? That is naivety or a blatant false statement.
The fact that they will not be charging less even though they are providing less service hits the nail on the head.
Oh, great. There goes my sex life.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
News readers are a lot more lightweight than web browsers, can deal with the format intelligently. That's what I'll miss when Cox (my ISP) drops Usenet. How big are browsers now, to make use of the all the funky Ajax features, that basically just simulate what I could do with trn in a terminal window 20 years ago?
Constitutionally Correct
The standard discussion forums for a great many tech communities are still on Usenet: comp.lang.python, comp.text.tex and gnu.emacs.gnus are just a few that I read daily. While you are right that the average subscriber doesn't know about Usenet these days, the Slashdot crowd ought to be upset that ISPs are dropping Usenet servers.
If NNTP is a significant part of Cox's traffic, then it would be stupid to discontinue the service, because then each user (minus those who stop using it altogether) will cause a copy of the traffic to become external, where it puts Cox in a worse position for peering agreements. The store-and-forward nature of Usenet is a major relief on cross-network bandwidth, as long as users stick to network-local servers.
Sure, you've got Google groups, but they're privately owned and moderated by Google.
Usenet is the only distributed, unmoderated message "board" out there that isn't bound by one particular owner's or government's rules. It may not seem important now, but free anonymous and uncensored posts can be very important sometimes...
I would state it as, "they're providing a service that 99% of their customers don't use, or even realize is there".
So, for those 99% of the customers, there isn't a visable loss. Cox thus views it as, "they weren't using it before; why should their payments go down. If they want to use it now, their payments will go up."
Capitalism in action.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
The "newsgroup" service that Usenet was designed for is now superseded by Google Groups (who absorbed DejaNews, the site that aimed to archive every Usenet post ever), zillions of web forums, blogs, comment friendly sites like, um, the one you're reading this on called Slashdot... get the point?
So we should just use a crappy web interface when there are vastly superior stand alone applications, is that what you're saying?
Every time some protocol gets eliminated. Every time things move from the open to the closed, the proprietary, the world sucks just a bit more. Interaction quality goes down, and you end being able to do less and less.
Let me guess. Twitter is better than email right? After all, a 140 character statically allocated array is enough for everyone. Or are we supposed to all be sucking at the tit of Mark Zuckerman's stolen walled garden?
This is a price hike for those who want to use an obscure feature that should lead to better service or lower costs for those of us who care about those things more than a supply of illegal content.
Actually it's a price hike for everyone jackass. When cost stays the same, and service goes down, you're actually paying more for less. It's the oldest trick in the book. Haven't you noticed that your box of Wheaties is smaller, but costs the same?
"Superseded" normally implies improvements. While Google/Deja provide a long term archive and searching support, they're nothing like as useful as a dedicated client to a newsgroup server for actually taking part in discussions. It's similar to the reason people use mail clients rather than just Gmail: you have more control over how you interact with others.
If the price was better, I would buy just a nekid connection with NO additional services. I can roll my own mail, web site, news... Just cut my price! What? You want to cut service, raise the price and shove some personal data-mining junk at me? Uh... Pass...
I don't see how this translates to a conflict with net neutrality.
They aren't saying you can't use Usenet, that they are going to block it somehow or that you have to use their Usenet servers at a premium price. They're just saying they aren't going to host it and offer it as part of their service package.
Regardless of whether this is a nice thing to do or not, it doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality.
I believe it is more accurate to say that they are not raising the price on everyone to keep an outdated service active for a few.
Really, it's a better idea IMO to use a 3rd party email service. Either a paid service, or a free one such as gmail/hotmail/yahoo. This way if you move, change ISPs for whatever reason, no longer need the ISP etc, you don't lose your email address. I've had my gMail account since it was invite only beta like 5 years ago. In that time I've moved and cancelled / signed-up for ISPs probably 6-7 times.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Yours is a pitiful argument. Just because you or even the majority of users don't use some aspect of the internet is not a good excuse to make a blanket assumption that no-one uses or wants it.
Your points sound similarly misguided to the malicious blurring that the RIAA and MPAA are trying to make around P2P, in that all P2P is by definition illegal regardless of the fact there are many legitimate P2P sites and P2P is simply an efficient distribution protocol, not a DRM circumvention mechanism in itself.
I use USENET legally and Google Groups and other free sources just don't provide what I want. Firstly, they dont cover binary groups and secondly they aren't nearly as easy/convenient to use, so your argument that other things have superseded USENET is entirely wrong.
In real terms it probably costs Cox next to nothing to have a USENET server sat in a rack, so the real savings of cutting it off are going to be minimal, probably just the electricity for an old server box that they've already re-tasked from other upgrades.
I'm surprised you really expect to see any noticeable improvement in other service areas as a result of Cox no longer suporting USENET. I seriously doubt it. All that this will mean is (probably literally) a few tens of dollars of extra corporate profit that we the users will never see the benefit of.
Personally I hate the idea that ISPs are being allowed to redefine "internet service" to just mean port 80 traffic. Cox's own advertising confirms I paid for an internet connection not just a web connection. I don't see why I should now be obliged to pay extra to keep the same level of service that I've had for the last 5 years.
Capitalism in action.
Sure, but in this case, I dunno that Cox are being the complete ass clowns they usually are. I was a big time usenet user, long ago. Lately, I've forgotten myself that it evens exists. Yes, I'm sure that there are die-hards who will take issue with this. To them I say "GET A LIFE". There's so many better, richer alternatives out there now for connecting with masses of people with the same interests. Besides, usenet has become a huge pornography distribution network with a few anecdotal, non-porn topics anyway, who really gives a sh*t if isp's are getting a little tired of carrying it. There's better ways to distribute porn than usenet as well. Usenet was one of those great protocols that came with this new-fangled internet thingy. Now its a little passed its prime and ready for pasture. Let it go.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
"Capitalism in action" implies customers who are displeased with the change can take their money to a different, roughly equivalent service.
The Internet is full. Go away.
What's left on Usenet is the "dark allies" of porn, spamming, and illegally shared copyrighted files.
What you describe is not just most of Usenet, but most of the Internet itself. Would you be OK if Cox discontinued all Internet service, but continued to bill customers?
In fact, 1) Usenet is lot more than the dark alleys of the internet.
2) What does Google have to do with it? So what about Google Groups? What about options? There is Gmail, does that mean there should be no other email option?
3) What about all the things my newsreader does that Google Groups does not? Saving threads for reading off line, killfile, etc.
4) You contradict yourself. If Usenet is such an obscure feature used by very few, why would removing access result in a measurable reduction in traffic?
The truth is Usenet does some things better than your "zillions of web forums, blogs, comment friendly sites."
Perhaps one can serve usenet in a rack, but that's so very not likely. Daily usenet traffic is measured in the hundreds of gigabytes and maintaining a local cache of that traffic means hundreds of gigabytes of traffic even if NO ONE ACCESSES IT. Whether you have one subscriber or 1000 using that local cache of traffic, the very act of maintaining a local cache means more inbound /0 traffic, more overhead in the form of support costs and maintenance costs, and dealing with an ever spiraling demand for more space.
Anyone who thinks usenet is dead is seriously uninformed. Easynews has gajillions of subscribers and they provide access to binaries groups directly via the browser - no need to learn t use nzbs or nntp clients unless you really want to. Easynews, Giganews and even Astraweb provide access to usenet in a way no other local ISP likely has for a decade now. I understand Cox has had very good usenet service but that just makes the point ever more: it costs real money to provide this service! Cox also has the problem of serving as an illicit gateway - a good bit of the illegal stuff posted to usenet has come through rooted windows machines sitting on the Cox network. By eliminating their pool of nntp resources they shift that security problem off onto Giganews, an ISP that focuses directly on providing this service.
The $15/month is _not_ what you'll be paying.
The real price is $30/month. It's a crazy price. It's Giganews' "Diamond" plan that has no quota and has vpn. This is the one you want if you have a peg leg, hook prosthetic, eye patch, single gold hoop earring, and a parrot on your shoulder. If you buy this, you have more money than sense.
If you use usenet as originally intended, i.e. text only, the Giganews' price is $3/month. But then there are free nntp servers that carry only text groups anyway.
Highwinds (Cox's usenet) has always sucked anyway. It was always slow and cantankerous.
For those of you saying "hurr, use google groups": shut up. The interface is made of dead babies and week old roadkill. Decades old slrn is better.
--
BMO
This sucks Cox.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
...for a community that loves to bash companies about "buggy whips" and "adapt or die", we sure do love to hold onto our outdated, largely useless tech ourselves, don't we?
Translation of the previous sentence for the benefit of Moderators: "Please mod this comment down to the 13th level of Hell"
Name one and I'll explain to you how it sucks and how in contrast usenet is far better and has been for decades.
That's very odd. I've been a faithful usenet user for around 5 years and I never saw porn on the newsgroups I subscribe. On the other hand, newsgroups such as comp.lang.c constantly get over 3 thousand posts a month, comp.lang.python also gets around 2500 post a month, comp.lang.c++ gets over 1500 posts a month and those are one of many newsgroups dedicated to specific details regarding a measly programming language. There are countless newsgroups dedicated to APIs, protocols, programming paradigms and any sort of hobby you can imagine and some of them do keep a pretty respectable post count. And yet, with zero porn on it. How is that possible?
I would, if that was my ISP. Thankfully, my ISP has been providing usenet access since I've started using the net. I really hope they don't discontinue it.
All you do is yap about porn. What a fixation you got there. That's all you do online? How did you got the time to take a pause from it to browse slashdot?
How exactly does a protocol "passed it's prime"? And even if that made any sense at all, the Network News Transfer Protocol specifications were released in 1986 while the world wide web, along with the hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) arrived in 1990. Does that mean that HTTP has already "passed it's prime"?
Please at least try to claim what you really wanted to claim: you don't use usenet (at least for something other than feeding your porn habits) and as you don't use it you believe it somehow sucks. Yet, that doesn't make it true, does it?
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Are you unsatisfied, or unsatisfied if something cheaper comes along? Unfortunately most people chose the later,and then we wonder why so many jobs have left, when all we do if feed these crappy corporations in America, but wish to bitch and moan about them with the same breath. You, a collective, not personal you, need to truly take a stand, and if it means it will cost you more to voice your displeasure, it costs you more. I have not shopped at Wal-Mart in 10+ years, they are the main reason you go into any rural area you see blighted towns. I do not frequent fast food chains, or any chains for when I eat a meal out. If I do eat out, it will be a family owned establishment, if I need to by a product, it will be a hard search, but I will buy it at a locally owned, hopefully family owned business. Does this mentality cost me more? Sometimes it does, but I know I am helping to keep my neighbors employed and food on their families table, and usually at a reasonable wage.
Now for your television watching habits to be specific with your post. Do you even need cable? Are your viewing habits requiring it? I, like most in America, have few choices, local cable, one of the satellite providers, or over the air broadcasts. I've chosen over the air for the network shows, I do time shift them with my PC, then hulu or the networks themselves have their programming available over the internet with fewer or no commercial breaks at all. There is very little programing I do not have some type of free access to without stealing it. So I have no need to pay for cable, and I'm sure you could buy nothing as well. I do get my internet service from the locol cable company, and as long as I do not use their DNS servers, it works just fine, 99% of their trouble is they have no clue how to do something as basic as provide stable DNS for their customers. So again, how serious are you really? I was one of the mom and pop internet providers in the 90's, my (ex)wife and I provided good a living and respectable benefits to dozens of employees until the higher speed connections were becoming popular and the little guy really didn't have a viable way to compete with it. I've since moved to the east coast, and you see people acting desperate for an alternative to their local monopoly internet provider, but like yourself, they don't really hate them that much, as when a real alternative is provided, the majority would rather get that $5 bundled discount.
Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
One point that is sometimes made about those "better, richer alternatives" is that they typically cause a serious problem that usenet has solved from the beginning: Most of them are web-based, and as such, every online forum has its own unique user interface. You have to learn a new GUI for nearly every one of them. With usenet, you can install one news reader and use it to read all the newsgroups that you subscribe to. Someone else can write a different interface, of course, but you don't have to use it if you don't like it. You can just continue to use the one that you like. With web-based forums, however, you must use the web site(s) that it's on, and they decide how the user interaction works. Many of them even require javascript, and they use it to break the browser's behavior, sometimes producing really bizarre, user-hostile behavior such as disabling the browser's Back button.
Now that the ISPs are abandoning usenet, we should be explaining how the open-source usenet software works, and restoring the older site-to-site distribution system. It's usually far superior to the browser-based forum implementations.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Yes, Usenet is unreliable, slow, expensive, and full of broken files. I can't imagine anyone would use it when torrents are available for fast, anonymous encrypted transfer of data. Who wants to pay an extra $50 a month for Usenet?
The thing I hate most about Usenet is the hard work involved. It's not like a torrent where you can just download a file. Instead you go through folder by folder, picking out parts of a file (sometimes up to 1000 parts!) and then stitching them together, unzipping and FINALLY playing the file.
Please mod me up. It is important that all torrent users know that they should keep using torrents.
Signed, Happy Usenet Customer
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."