@@31==================================================================
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 20:46:08 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Percy E. van Kanten" <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

<Hi_Mic@urc>,<Hilleris@urc>,<Ine_Tsai@uvs>,<JDavid@urc> , <MHW@urc>,<Mike@urc>,<Pascal@urc>,<Ray@urc>

In message Mon, 09 Oct 95 12:36 EDT,

[email protected] (am146) writes:

> To: [email protected] (am146)
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Re: NUPOP software (fwd)
> From: [email protected] (Percy E. van Kanten)

>> Yes we think we could use some help...
>> .. count on it that I will be getting back to
>> you on this soon.

Copy to Gerold, see?

We then installed NUPOP on the LINUX box, found out a lot of interesting things with little need for external help. The node is up and running, thanks to a bunch of clever local people.

> In the months that followed I exchange mail with Gerold Van Dijk,
Right so. He is the sysop! I only tried to help in re-establishing the contact, after you wrote to me.

> I sent the UNIX version of Waffle...
> with this he added new functionality to his Linux Box...

Not really... It was maybe a valid idea of Gerold to copy Waffle to LINUX, but we have meanwhile found out that in doing so we you kind of degrade the functionality already built into LINUX and other related tools like NUPOP. We also have Gopher and WWW running.

> On the 4th of July 1995, I received a request from Gerold for help with
> aquiring a class C IP, It was apparent that UVS was now considering full
> IP...
> Over the months since
> July gerold and myself have exchanged many e-mail messages concerning
> this very topic,
And once you have finished your deliberations, maybe as a next step after conquering Waffle, soon the University's 486 LINUX box AND the 386 DOS machine with Waffle can at last be linked to the rest of the world through Pittsburgh! If the darn machines would not be down, like some weeks ago, because of a slight power problem and still no funds for a UPS, let alone a spare PC. The only little detail still missing would then be the US$ 4.000 a month leased line, to be rented from TELESUR, who happen to have a monopoly position with regard to providing communication services to third parties.
But than we will be able to offer our 95 active users direct IP.

As I mentioned: TELESUR, our national telcom has announced to start
offering full internet access.

They have already installed their set of SUN SPARCS and array of 28k8 modems. They had no difficulty in allocating sufficient telephone lines to dial in without the 30 to 45 minutes delay our users now often have before they can even get connected. They already have their IP-address and Pittsburgh connection. Agreed, their tariffs will be stiff, but (at least for the mail-only service) still only a fraction of the cost we now share for our 9600 bps voice grade telephone link to UPR. They did, as far as I know, bring up to the manager of our University network, the possibility to offer access to the INternet through their channels as an alternative to consider, but I do not know his decision.

I am not in the position to decide for our user-community how the competition would work out between the leased line setup you and Gerold have been working on, and on the other side, the new full fledged TELESUR net. But I do have my doubts...

I would think that a more satisfying strategy to spend precious CUNET and local means and efforts, would be to work out a cooperation arrangement with telecom providers. Or a policy basis for such arranegements. I could imagine that at least in some places, the policy regarding networking may be starting to grow out of the pioneering stage of technically building the connection. The technical side is still very important, but it might be getting time to start thinking about a policy shift.

And again I may be wrong but I think (and have discussed this in fact with a number of users here in Suriname) is that since we can now leave the technics to the technicians we should start looking from the USER perspective and work out an adequate user policy. Perhaps CUNET could fulfil an important leading and coordinating role in that respect. And as I understand, this has been part of the discussion which is apparently going on now. Aparantly we have independently reached the same conclusion as others on the net.

> you made no formal input to the process...yet you make
> such blanket statements as one above
I may not have been in direct contact with you. But I asure you that I did indeed contribute my share. As did a number of other active users.

> ...please check your facts before writing crazy statements.
What was so crazy in my statements? What facts did not match?

> I also requested additional info from UVS..I am now awaiting a reply...
I will mention this to Gerold

>> 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.
The topic of upgrading the link was brought up by me in 1993, together with the proposal of reverse calls.
Since than we have spoken often about it with Gerold, as we pay by the tick and had every interest in getting a faster connection, but we always understood from him that the limiting factor was in UPR.

The other people on our net who know what they are talking about have mentioned UUCP-block sizes and compression and what have you. To no avail.

> The University's present system supports 14,400 bps...Also, UPR has
> embarked on a campus wide expansion and upgrade project...
Good for them. And my sincere congratulations. But allas, we are no part of that wonderfull development. We are, as far as I am informed, still linked to the same old 9600 bps TELEBIT.

I must thank you for the very interesting figures you have provided on connectivity in the Caribbean. So indeed your efforts have apparently been directed elsewhere and I honestly think you did a good job there.

I also am very much aware that communication is not what we have been very much involved in in the period behind us (It is indeed very expensive for us).

Archie, let's be straightforward. I have the impression that you feel attacked by what I brought forward. This is perhaps influenced by the previous discussion that I was no part of. I never meant to hurt your or anyones feelings and if that has been the case, I truly appologize for that.

I most sincerely think that CUNET has played a priceless pioneering role in bringing the net to the Caribbean and we have benefitted from that. What all respect and gratitude for that, I think we should embark on the next stage.

Best regards,
Percy
.