@@29======================================================================== Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 18:20:52 -0300 (ADT) From: "Percy E. van Kanten" <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected]Reply-To: [email protected]
Dear Daniel,
As you requested, here are the statistics out of the Waffle USER-LIST files of our SkyNet node in Suriname.
As I understand from you, there is a discussion now going on on the net about the networking developments within the Caribbean.
I am really sorry not to be in the position to participate in that discussion, but I fully agree with you that discussions can be much improved by having hard facts available. While the information you are looking for is not readily accessible, it is not classified so I do not see any restriction in providing you with it. I did not send the files themselves but rather worked out the relevant statistics.
As I understood Dr Saul Hahn and Archie Marshall are also in lack of these hard facts, so I will provide them with a copy of this mail, as well as Prof Larry Press and Dr George Sadowsky with whom I have earlier exchanged views about the development of networking in the region. Your request was a welcome excuse to spend some effort in working out this information also for our own local use.
About the discussion: We do have very much to thank to the initiative of Dr Hahn some five years ago to start the CUNET and to interest UPR in providing the gateway service. We have used UPR-s passage-way ever since, whithout having been charged for the cost, for which we are very gratefull.
As you are aware, after this first initiative, the development of our local net, was entirely carried on locally.
We have heard that in the last years a more active and supporting role is being played by the CUNET through its coordinator, Archie Marshall, but this has apparently been directed elsewhere. In Suriname, perhaps because of our forward position (we have in fact been the only active node of the CUNET for the first couple of years) we have not had the chance to benefit much from said supporting activities of the CUNET.
Our proposal, some two years ago, to initiate at least part of the telephone calls by UPR and present us the bills, because of the lower telephone rate, has been taken into favourable consideration by Dr Hahn to be worked out with UPR. It seems however that the other CUNET participants had less problem with the telephone rates than we are having, in view of our economic problems and the resulting very unfavourable exchange rate. The idea seems not to have had the highest priority among the contributions made by CUNET/OAS to the Caribbean.
We could also understand that funds were not readily available to upgrade the UPR2 gateway, for which reason we could not do much about improving the transmission speed and efficiency higher than 9600 bps.
As our national telephone company has announced to start offering full internet access in a very short period, I foresee that a more cost- effective solution than making international calls to UPR will be soon available to us. I have been informed that the Caribean services of Cable and Wireless is planning to offer the same service in a nuber of Caribbean islands. Barbados already started its Internet access, which will be also accesable from a number of islands participating in the the Caribbean Online network. The Caribbean Association of National Telecom Operators (CANTO) has made Internet access one of its priorities.
It is my feeling that much of the pioneering role that CUNET has played, will soon be superseded by these new developments. It is only to hope that new initiatives will be in time to adapt its potential role to meet the changes in the actual needs of the Caribbean. I do think that in order to do this, a more active role of CUNET would be needed than before. There is much to do and the needs, but also the potentials of networking in the Caribbean are enormous.
Please keep me informed about the total statistics-picture you are now trying to put together, and of other developments in the Caribbean scene.
Regards,
Percy van Kanten
METHOD
I cleaned up the files, taking out service-accounts invalid accounts etc
and tried to avoid double counting
Then I read them into MS ACCES and in QPRO
The most significant figures are from our main node. Of 295 registered
accounts, 261 remained after cleaning up.
I calculated the number of weeks sinds last login and devided those in larger
blocks
A= number of weeks since last login (i.a. 8 means: less than 8 weeks ago)
B= number of users (i.a. 155 users have logged in less than 8 weeks
= 2 months ago)C= rounded percentage
If we can consider a lapse of about a month between logins "active" than we have about 50% "active" users.
A B C 1 75 30% 2 99 40% 4 116 45% 8 154 60% 12 180 70% 26 234 90% 40 261 100%
TOC-node
A second node was set up as a training tool for the telecom company.
Of this node 65 users are registered but 40 remained after cleaning up. Of
these, again 50% apears to be active users
URC-node
I have no data of the 44 registered accounts on the third node, which runs
under LINUX. But as the users re among the most active group of pioneers
and all have an account on the main node as well, the lack of data will not
significantly influence the ooutcome.
EXP-node
The fourth node (mainly used for experimenting and development) was
recently discontinued.
I can not provide you with traffic data, but perhaps our Sysop, Gerold van Dijk, might be willing to do so.
I hope you can use this. Please don't hesitate to contact me for any further
info.
.