Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!rick
From: rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Bitnet gateways?
Summary: free lunches
Message-ID: <69874@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 10 Oct 89 04:21:05 GMT
References: <1989Oct3.234604.10248@NCoast.ORG> <31716@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <2038@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>
Organization: UUNET Communications Services, Falls Church, VA
Lines: 36

As a dues paying member of Usenix, you are entitled to pay to use the
Uunet service. You are also entitled to pay to use the service if you
are a non dues paying member of Usenix (of which there are too many) or
even if you are not a member of Usenix. You are not entitled to
freeload, but currently, we chose to allow third party traffic and will
probably continue to do so as long as the paying customers do not
object. Note that declining to reject is quite a bit different than
accepting (morally if not functionally).

A Usenix member who had been paying attention would have known that
UUNET legally separated from Usenix on 1/1/89 and that being a Usenix
member was as relevant as being a member of the NRA when determining
"rights" to use UUNET. However,...

If Usenix were truly funding UUNET as you suggest, it would work out to
about $5,000 per member for 1989. (As I recall, I'm only paying $40 for
MY Usenix dues...) Fortunately, about 1000 sites are paying to use the
service, so the direct cost to Usenix members is zero.  (Thats
calculated as $1,500,000/3,000 for those who question the $5,000. The
1.5 million is accurate. The 3,000 is a guess. The actual number is
probably lower.)

What Usenix DID do (for which many of us are very grateful) is risk
Usenix money in starting the venture. UUNET has been self sufficient
for just about 1 year now.  Usenix is getting every cent of its startup
capital repaid under a mutually agreed to payment schedule.

It has been suggested that once per month, on a random day, uunet
reject all third party traffic. The concept is similar to having to
lock a gate on your property to prevent someone from claiming an
adverse easement (i.e. since you didn't stop them, you have implicitly
permitted them).

I dont expect things to ever come to that, however, it is tempting...

--rick