Time Warner dropped newsgroups

Time Warner dropped newsgroups

Okay guys, I had a rude awakening this morning when I logged into the
news server and found that Time Warner/Road Runner was dropping its
newsgroup access. They gave us absolutley NO WARNING (other than the
rumors and news from other service providers). We just logged in and
they were gone. Anyway... Motzarella.org out of Germany is a free
server that still serves the alt. groups, so I think it will work for
now... If anyone has a BETTER free service, please let me know. I
can't justify paying for something that I already pay Time Warner
for. :(

Cindy

Re: Time Warner dropped newsgroups

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:37:45 CST, Cindy Murray <c1ndyluhu@tx.rr,com > wrote in <DE6E75C0-B9FD-4F22-8A47-8FCF2D440012@tx.rr,com >:

>Okay guys, I had a rude awakening this morning when I logged into the
>news server and found that Time Warner/Road Runner was dropping its
>newsgroup access. They gave us absolutley NO WARNING (other than the
>rumors and news from other service providers). We just logged in and
>they were gone. Anyway... Motzarella.org out of Germany is a free
>server that still serves the alt. groups, so I think it will work for
>now... If anyone has a BETTER free service, please let me know. I
>can't justify paying for something that I already pay Time Warner
>for. :(

Here is as comprehensive a list of news servers as I have
been able to make:

http :// www .big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:news_providers

I paid Astraweb $10 for 25 GB of text-only service a few years
back. It still seems to be working. I'm paying more for
Supernews nowadays; I appreciate their filtering. Supernews
has recently been acquired by Giganews. So far, I haven't
noticed a huge deterioration in service. If I do, I'll
probably try another news server and see how they do.

People have lots of options. At least for now. ;o)

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http :// www .big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

Re: Time Warner dropped newsgroups


"Cindy Murray" <c1ndyluhu@tx.rr,com > wrote in message
news:DE6E75C0-B9FD-4F22-8A47-8FCF2D440012@tx.rr,com ...
> Okay guys, I had a rude awakening this morning when I logged into the
> news server and found that Time Warner/Road Runner was dropping its
> newsgroup access. They gave us absolutley NO WARNING (other than the
> rumors and news from other service providers). We just logged in and
> they were gone. Anyway... Motzarella.org out of Germany is a free
> server that still serves the alt. groups, so I think it will work for
> now... If anyone has a BETTER free service, please let me know. I can't
> justify paying for something that I already pay Time Warner for. :(
>
> Cindy
>

aioe.org is a free news server, with a decent reputation for reliability,
and they support posting. (Many free servers do not)

Re: Time Warner dropped newsgroups

Cindy Murray wrote:
> Okay guys, I had a rude awakening this morning when I logged into the
> news server and found that Time Warner/Road Runner was dropping its
> newsgroup access. They gave us absolutley NO WARNING (other than the
> rumors and news from other service providers). We just logged in and
> they were gone. Anyway... Motzarella.org out of Germany is a free
> server that still serves the alt. groups, so I think it will work for
> now... If anyone has a BETTER free service, please let me know. I
> can't justify paying for something that I already pay Time Warner for. :(
>
> Cindy
>

You can try Google Groups (free) to access the newsgroup.
Alternatively, for about $10 Euro/yr ($15), there's
news.individual,net for text-only groups. They have a good
reputation. I trialed it for two weeks before the RR drop, and
just converted my account today.

Aero

Re: Time Warner dropped newsgroups

Cindy Murray <c1ndyluhu@tx.rr,com > wrote in news:DE6E75C0-B9FD-4F22-8A47-
8FCF2D440012@tx.rr,com :

> Okay guys, I had a rude awakening this morning when I logged into the
> news server and found that Time Warner/Road Runner was dropping its
> newsgroup access. They gave us absolutley NO WARNING (other than the
> rumors and news from other service providers).

This is called the law of unintended consequences. The New York
atty general required ISPs to block access to the alt.* groups,
because child porn might be found in some of them. Since Usenet
costs the ISPs money, and is used by a pretty small subset of
users, some of them have decided it's simpler to just get rid
of Usenet entirely.

The Italian server, aoie.org, seems to have a passable rep for
a free service. I would not be surprised if they get overloaded
in the near future, tho.

John

Re: Time Warner dropped newsgroups

John McCoy wrote:
> Cindy Murray <c1ndyluhu@tx.rr,com > wrote in news:DE6E75C0-B9FD-4F22-8A47-
> 8FCF2D440012@tx.rr,com :
>
>> Okay guys, I had a rude awakening this morning when I logged into the
>> news server and found that Time Warner/Road Runner was dropping its
>> newsgroup access. They gave us absolutley NO WARNING (other than the
>> rumors and news from other service providers).
>
> This is called the law of unintended consequences. The New York
> atty general required ISPs to block access to the alt.* groups,
> because child porn might be found in some of them. Since Usenet
> costs the ISPs money, and is used by a pretty small subset of
> users, some of them have decided it's simpler to just get rid
> of Usenet entirely.
>
> The Italian server, aoie.org, seems to have a passable rep for
> a free service. I would not be surprised if they get overloaded
> in the near future, tho.
>
> John
>

baby-bathwater scenario...

--

>G< ©

Re: Time Warner dropped newsgroups

Cindy Murray wrote:
> Okay guys, I had a rude awakening this morning when I logged into the
> news server and found that Time Warner/Road Runner was dropping its
> newsgroup access. They gave us absolutley NO WARNING (other than the
> rumors and news from other service providers). We just logged in and
> they were gone. Anyway... Motzarella.org out of Germany is a free
> server that still serves the alt. groups, so I think it will work for
> now... If anyone has a BETTER free service, please let me know. I
> can't justify paying for something that I already pay Time Warner for. :(
>
> Cindy
>

Thanks for all the answers...I hadn't meant for this to go to the group,
but the "Ugly Workaround" address somehow got added to my address book
under the Moderators list address... Ooops....

I sure hope we don't lose what few readers we have because of
this....Although I find it very troublesome that this ruling by the NY
atty gen. hasn't been contested as unconstitutional. It is, in short,
censorship. :(

Re: Time Warner dropped newsgroups


"Cindy Murray" <c1ndyluhu@tx.rr,com > wrote in message
news:g3sbt9$bhk$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Cindy Murray wrote:
>> Okay guys, I had a rude awakening this morning when I logged into the
>> news server and found that Time Warner/Road Runner was dropping its
>> newsgroup access. They gave us absolutley NO WARNING (other than the
>> rumors and news from other service providers). We just logged in and
>> they were gone. Anyway... Motzarella.org out of Germany is a free
>> server that still serves the alt. groups, so I think it will work for
>> now... If anyone has a BETTER free service, please let me know. I can't
>> justify paying for something that I already pay Time Warner for. :(
>>
>> Cindy
>>
>
> Thanks for all the answers...I hadn't meant for this to go to the group,
> but the "Ugly Workaround" address somehow got added to my address book
> under the Moderators list address... Ooops....
>
> I sure hope we don't lose what few readers we have because of
> this....Although I find it very troublesome that this ruling by the NY
> atty gen. hasn't been contested as unconstitutional. It is, in short,
> censorship. :(

Yeah, I'd hate to lose the few folks we have. This decision by Cuomo,
Time-Warner and Verizon aggravates the snot out of me. I subscribe to
several of the alt. groups and we have lost some members because of this.
>From what I've read, out of all the alt. groups, only 17 have been connected
with porn. I don't know how many alt. groups there are but I would think 17
groups is a miniscule number in the grand scheme of things. One would think
that there would be a way to isolate the 17 offenders without affecting the
whole alt. community. My local ISP is not affected, but if I were a
Time-Warner or Verizon customer, I would be raising holy hell.

Mike

>

Re: Time Warner dropped newsgroups

Okay its drastic..but let Winston Sprint Nextel Maxi Tampons Cup cut that
boring race in Watkins Glen and see what happens.

Re: Time Warner dropped newsgroups

It does rather have the feel of a town deciding that, it having come to
their attention that some magazines are rather raunchy, and them not wanting
That Sort Of Thing in their town, henceforth NO magazines will be allowed in
the town. Take THAT, Time, Newsweek, and Catholic Digest!

--pig


On 6/25/08 08:33, in article uYadnbwIzvsfsf_VnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@posted.yhti,
"Mike Simmons" <mikesim@yhti,net > wrote:

> Yeah, I'd hate to lose the few folks we have. This decision by Cuomo,
> Time-Warner and Verizon aggravates the snot out of me. I subscribe to
> several of the alt. groups and we have lost some members because of this.
>> From what I've read, out of all the alt. groups, only 17 have been connected
> with porn. I don't know how many alt. groups there are but I would think 17
> groups is a miniscule number in the grand scheme of things. One would think
> that there would be a way to isolate the 17 offenders without affecting the
> whole alt. community. My local ISP is not affected, but if I were a
> Time-Warner or Verizon customer, I would be raising holy hell.

Re: Time Warner dropped newsgroups

"Mike Simmons" <mikesim@yhti,net > wrote in
news:uYadnbwIzvsfsf_VnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@posted.yhti:

> From what I've read, out of all the alt. groups, only 17 have been
> connected
> with porn. I don't know how many alt. groups there are

Several thousand (it's impossible to give an exact number, because
a lot of bogus groups have been created in alt by people playing
games, and every server out there has a different collection of
them, slowly being filled by spammers).

> but I would
> think 17 groups is a miniscule number in the grand scheme of things.
> One would think that there would be a way to isolate the 17 offenders
> without affecting the whole alt. community.

Of course there is. But a newsserver costs money, and fixing it
properly costs even more money. Whereas getting rid of it both
saves money and removes any possible liability for not finding
any new problem groups. It's not hard to see why an ISP would
chose to go that way.

None the less, it is an unfortunate example of how, with the best
of intentions, our constitutional rights & freedoms are slowly
slipping away.

John

Re: Time Warner dropped newsgroups

While I would agree (witness the Patriot Act) that your core argument is
true (re: constitutional rights and freedoms), I'm not quite sure I see the
basis for what it sounds like you're arguing: that we have a constitutional
right to USENET.

Wanna run that by me again?

--pig


On 6/26/08 00:00, in article Xns9AC8C5A3BD969pogosupernews@216.168.3.30,
"John McCoy" <igopogo@ix,net com,com > wrote:

> None the less, it is an unfortunate example of how, with the best
> of intentions, our constitutional rights & freedoms are slowly
> slipping away.

Re: Time Warner dropped newsgroups

Megan Zurawicz <listpig@sbcglobal,net > wrote in
news:C4888A0E.614DC%listpig@sbcglobal,net :

> While I would agree (witness the Patriot Act) that your core argument
> is true (re: constitutional rights and freedoms), I'm not quite sure I
> see the basis for what it sounds like you're arguing: that we have a
> constitutional right to USENET.
>
> Wanna run that by me again?

The Constitution does not constrain the right to free speech to
any particular medium. If the state (in this case the State of
New York) prohibts the use of a particular USENET newsgroup on
the grounds that it _might_ be used for child porn, that seems
to be an egregious fault. Surely the Constitutionally valid
way to combat child porn is to pursue the creators of child
porn, not ban the medium they coincidently use to distribute it.

Of course, no one will challenge it - no one would want to risk
being labelled a supporter of child porn. And thus a precedent
is set - "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of
speech (unless it's for a greater good, like combatting child
porn)".

John

Re: Time Warner dropped newsgroups

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:00:02 CST, John McCoy <igopogo@ix,net com,com > wrote in <Xns9AC8C5A3BD969pogosupernews@216.168.3.30>:

>"Mike Simmons" <mikesim@yhti,net > wrote in
>news:uYadnbwIzvsfsf_VnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@posted.yhti:

>> From what I've read, out of all the alt. groups, only 17 have been
>> connected
>> with porn. I don't know how many alt. groups there are

>Several thousand ...

It's on the order of tens of thousands.

> ...(it's impossible to give an exact number ...

You can go here, wait for a long while, download the
list to a text editor, and count the lines:

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/alt/

Then you will have an exact number. :o)

It's a rather odd list. Here is a tiny sample:

alt.i-think
alt.i-think.therefore
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.listen-to.alt.config
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.listen-to.casey-casem
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.listen-to.cnn
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.listen-to.corporate-rock
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.listen-to.country-music
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.listen-to
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.listen-to.john-corliss
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.listen-to.opera
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.listen-to.oprah
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.listen-to.rush-limbaugh
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.listen-to.the-voices-in-my-head
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.listen-to.top-40
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.use.aol
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.use
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.use.linux
alt.i-think.therefore.i-dont.use.mac
alt.i-think.therefore.i-spam
alt.i-think.therefore.i-spnak
alt.i-think.therefore.i-spnak.starshine-moonbeam

> ... because
>a lot of bogus groups have been created in alt by people playing
>games ...

They're not bogus at all. If they're on the ISC list,
they're as real as any other newsgroup. Freedom to
create newsgroups without oversight by anybody else
is what got alt.* started. And the beat goes on.

> ... and every server out there has a different collection of
>them ...

True. For any news server, you can count how many
alt.* groups they carry by browsing their newsgroup
list.

> ... a newsserver costs money, and fixing it
>properly costs even more money. Whereas getting rid of it both
>saves money and removes any possible liability for not finding
>any new problem groups. It's not hard to see why an ISP would
>chose to go that way.

Yup.

I know that this thread is off-topic. It got started
by accident. But I think it is good from time to time
to talk a little bit about how Usenet works. rasnm
is part of Usenet, for good or for ill, so the future
of Usenet affects us.

And just in case there are any Verizon customsers listening
in, here is a FAQ about what is happening:

http :// www .big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:verizon

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http :// www .big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

Re: Time Warner dropped newsgroups

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski@canisius.edu> wrote in
news:G-2dnd99b44fuf7VnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@supernews,com :

> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:00:02 CST, John McCoy <igopogo@ix,net com,com >
> wrote in <Xns9AC8C5A3BD969pogosupernews@216.168.3.30>:
>
>>"Mike Simmons" <mikesim@yhti,net > wrote in
>>news:uYadnbwIzvsfsf_VnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@posted.yhti:
>
>>> I don't know how many alt. groups there are
>
>>Several thousand ...
>
> It's on the order of tens of thousands.

Jeremy still part of the B8MB? Ask him to tell you why it's
not "tens of thousands".

>> ... because
>>a lot of bogus groups have been created in alt by people playing
>>games ...
>
> They're not bogus at all.

They're bogus because they weren't intended to be newsgroups
(i.e. repositories of posts). They were just intended to display
a cute title.

> I know that this thread is off-topic. It got started
> by accident. But I think it is good from time to time
> to talk a little bit about how Usenet works. rasnm
> is part of Usenet, for good or for ill, so the future
> of Usenet affects us.

Apologies for continueing the off-topic thread. But I agree with
you that having some knowledge of things like this is beneficial.

John