Usenet going bye bye

[Leo Mauler]

--- On Fri, 6/27/08, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins at tarcanfel.org> wrote:

> As to running a Usenet relay - it's a very expensive
> thing to do.  It's a LOT of data and a LOT of traffic.  
> Most usenet servers, I believe, are still run on multi 
> machine clusters.  This is why subscriptions are so
> high, why ISP's are eager to shed the burden, and why
> you don't find local guys who used to run BBSs running 
> their own Usenet servers.
> 
> Compared to the amount of benefit that any small group of
> users like our LUG would get, the traffic of a Usenet 
> server would mostly be wasted - but it would cost a lot.

I agree it would cost a lot if the private KCLUG Usenet server ran a server with the whole set of newsgroups.  However, existing Usenet servers can choose not to accept certain newsgroups and even entire hierarchies.

Would the cost be the same as a "full-set" Usenet server if the KCLUG Usenet server only included those text-only newsgroups specifically requested by KCLUG members?  It would seem to me that, for example, 10 text-only newsgroups would use a heck of a lot less hard drive space and processor power than 10,000 newsgroups.