Verizon, Sprint to Cut Alt.* Usenet Hierarchy and Time Warner will be dropping Usenet entirely

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
It sucks, but I'm surprised it didn't happen a few years ago. The total number of people that use usenet is probably maybe 10% of their base; I'd say that fewer than 10% of the 10% that use it use it for ANY legal purpose (and a fraction of that uses it _only_ for legal purposes)...and from their perspective, making it available is just more liability.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,091
136
Originally posted by: beer
It sucks, but I'm surprised it didn't happen a few years ago. The total number of people that use usenet is probably maybe 10% of their base; I'd say that fewer than 10% of the 10% that use it use it for ANY legal purpose (and a fraction of that uses it _only_ for legal purposes)...and from their perspective, making it available is just more liability.

QFT. I'm also amazed this didn't happen sooner.
 

pcslookout

Lifer
Mar 18, 2007
11,958
155
106
Who cares it is not like isp newsgroup access is worth using. Most people will just go to BT instead anyway. A lot of people don't like to pay.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
I'd pay $3-6/month for nntp should TW drop it. Course I'm waiting for FIOS availability so I can drop TW so fair is fair.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
none of the providers i have had the last 8 years had access to it. really not suprised they are dropping it or alt. access.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: beer
It sucks, but I'm surprised it didn't happen a few years ago. The total number of people that use usenet is probably maybe 10% of their base; I'd say that fewer than 10% of the 10% that use it use it for ANY legal purpose (and a fraction of that uses it _only_ for legal purposes)...and from their perspective, making it available is just more liability.

It's less than that. 3% or less. Which is why they can drop it without worrying too much. All the other ISPs have given it up mostly as well. If you want it now, you'll pay separately for it. The cost of the equipment and infrastructure necessary to support Usenet for only a few percent of their user base...just doesn't make sense from a business standpoint and this child porn drama just gives them a perfect excuse to ax it.
 

Ktulu

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2000
4,354
0
0
Originally posted by: Nocturnal
Disregard, I'm an idiot. Says clearly that we can still use Giganews.

Yeah, I was worried there for a second. It's only concerning the folks that use those respected providers newsgroup access.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Wouldn't providing Usenet servers lower the use of their precious bandwidth?
 

God Mode

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2005
2,903
0
71
It really sucks that TW is the only ISP available to my address. I would drop them so quickly for even basic DSL.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,370
8,494
126
why kill all of atl.*? why not just the 88 offending groups? or even alt.binaries.*?
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
Originally posted by: ElFenix
why kill all of atl.*? why not just the 88 offending groups? or even alt.binaries.*?

No kidding alt.home.repair is my second second home after AT and TFNN.

I also spend some serious time on rec.gardens and rec.woodworking too.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,997
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
why kill all of atl.*? why not just the 88 offending groups? or even alt.binaries.*?

Because they want to dump usenet and the "88 offending groups" provide a convenient excuse.

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Who cares it is not like isp newsgroup access is worth using. Most people will just go to BT instead anyway. A lot of people don't like to pay.

And p2p apps will be the next to go. Then redtube, then youtube and then anything else that uses more bandwidth than email.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: her209
Wouldn't providing Usenet servers lower the use of their precious bandwidth?

Nah, because most folks still wouldn't be able to figure it out...and would continue torrenting away anyway. Add in the cost of the equipment and infrastructure necessary to support Usenet (which has grown enormously in the last couple years) and it's a losing proposition. I remember when the full Usenet feed went over 1TB daily people went nuts. Haven't looked lately but I know it is much above that now. The bandwidth and storage requirements have simply gotten to be too much for ISPs to deal with, and for far too few users.

FWIW there is a Giganews special for TW/RR where you can get unlimited SSL for like $15 a month. If you're too cheap to cough that up, stick with the torrents. (Not directed at OP or you, her209, just a general observation.)
 

pcslookout

Lifer
Mar 18, 2007
11,958
155
106
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: her209
Wouldn't providing Usenet servers lower the use of their precious bandwidth?

Nah, because most folks still wouldn't be able to figure it out...and would continue torrenting away anyway. Add in the cost of the equipment and infrastructure necessary to support Usenet (which has grown enormously in the last couple years) and it's a losing proposition. I remember when the full Usenet feed went over 1TB daily people went nuts. Haven't looked lately but I know it is much above that now. The bandwidth and storage requirements have simply gotten to be too much for ISPs to deal with, and for far too few users.

FWIW there is a Giganews special for TW/RR where you can get unlimited SSL for like $15 a month. If you're too cheap to cough that up, stick with the torrents. (Not directed at OP or you, her209, just a general observation.)

Are you the same person that keeps posting about this on other forums ?
 

rockyct

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2001
6,656
32
91
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: ElFenix
why kill all of atl.*? why not just the 88 offending groups? or even alt.binaries.*?

Because they want to dump usenet and the "88 offending groups" provide a convenient excuse.

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Who cares it is not like isp newsgroup access is worth using. Most people will just go to BT instead anyway. A lot of people don't like to pay.

And p2p apps will be the next to go. Then redtube, then youtube and then anything else that uses more bandwidth than email.

<yawn> you hurt your point when you bring in the slippery slope argument. The day they block youtube is the day teens start rioting in the street.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,997
126
Originally posted by: rockyct
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: ElFenix
why kill all of atl.*? why not just the 88 offending groups? or even alt.binaries.*?

Because they want to dump usenet and the "88 offending groups" provide a convenient excuse.

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Who cares it is not like isp newsgroup access is worth using. Most people will just go to BT instead anyway. A lot of people don't like to pay.

And p2p apps will be the next to go. Then redtube, then youtube and then anything else that uses more bandwidth than email.

<yawn> you hurt your point when you bring in the slippery slope argument. The day they block youtube is the day teens start rioting in the street.

It's hardly the "slippery slope argument". From the dawn of the internet ISPs have complained about the 5% of users consuming 95% of the bandwidth and looking to dump those people. So get off the soapbox for a minute and apply a brain cell or two. What happens when usenet goes bye-bye? Yes, the existing top 5% of users lose their outlet. Then what happens? Are you really living in a fantasy world where that's going to satisfy the ISPs? They'll cut capacity to cut costs and they'll find themselves right back in the same equation. A new group of 5% will be consuming 95% of the resources and that will be the p2p-ers. If they survive dumping usenet (and they will) they'll happily dump p2p too just to get rid of the pesky 5% who are supposedly ruining things for everyone else. And if p2p gets blocked the heaviest users will find a new venue for their porn and they'll turn to redtube, youporn and 1000 others that will spring up overnight. The ISPs want to get rid of the heaviest users and there will ALWAYS be a group of heavier users whether than use is usenet, p2p, streaming porn, or whatever else.

And get real, WTF cares if teenagers are rioting in the streets over youtube getting blocked? Teenagers are not paying the bills, teenagers are the demographic the ISPs want to get rid of.
 

God Mode

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2005
2,903
0
71
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: her209
Wouldn't providing Usenet servers lower the use of their precious bandwidth?

Nah, because most folks still wouldn't be able to figure it out...and would continue torrenting away anyway. Add in the cost of the equipment and infrastructure necessary to support Usenet (which has grown enormously in the last couple years) and it's a losing proposition. I remember when the full Usenet feed went over 1TB daily people went nuts. Haven't looked lately but I know it is much above that now. The bandwidth and storage requirements have simply gotten to be too much for ISPs to deal with, and for far too few users.

FWIW there is a Giganews special for TW/RR where you can get unlimited SSL for like $15 a month. If you're too cheap to cough that up, stick with the torrents. (Not directed at OP or you, her209, just a general observation.)

Yes, $15 for the first month and $30 after for the SSL service. I hate to say it but bring on the government operated ISP without such BS nickel diming and cutting services because it cuts into the executives salaries.
 

revnja

Platinum Member
Feb 1, 2004
2,864
0
76
I think my ISP outsources their NNTP to TW, so this is kind of a blow to me. They carry most of the big a.b groups, and I always reliably max out my line. :(

news.cvinternet.net -> news.twtelecom.net