Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Info Needed on Prodigy Service
Message-ID: <14532@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 90 18:57:32 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Lines: 55
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 805, Message 2 of 7


In article <14478@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0003209613@mcimail.com (Sandy
Kyrish) writes:

>I'm interested in knowing just how successful Prodigy *really* is.

	[ stuff deleted ]

>[Moderator's Note: I'm hearing some bad news about Prodigy lately. So
>'they' say, several users recently were summarily evicted from the
>service after they sent email to other users criticizing the service's
>plan to begin charging for 'excessive' amounts of email.  Does anyone
>have any details on this?  PAT]

I too have read this information, but, alas, I did not save the
source, and I don't remember what the source was.  So, I will try to
remember a few things about what I read.

A group of Prodigy users recently tried to form a boycott of all
Prodigy advertisers (Prodigy is cheaper than services like CompuServe
becuase they run ads at the bottom of the screen).  This boycott was
in response to a recent Prodigy rate increase, particularly a plan to
begin charging for e-mail messages that exceeded some limit X per
household.

This group of boycotting users began sending e-mail to all subscribers
trying to rally converts to their cause.  Prodigy likened this mass
mailing to "junk mail" and eventually removed the instigators from the
system.  I understand that Prodigy now has a rule that the subject of
the rate increase and boycott are not to be mentioned in any mailings
or postings on the system, and that any messages that do mention them
will be returned to the sender.

Once again, I must state that I don't have the source of this
information.  I do not guarantee any of this information.  Does anyone
else have any corrections, clarifications, or additions?

If much of this is true, it raises some possibly interesting
questions: If Prodigy is returning messages to the sender based on
content, does this mean that they are reading all messages sent on the
system?  Is this "right"?  Is this the same as censorship?  Becuase
Prodigy is a private service, are they allowed to censor non-offensive
material?  But, they are using a common-carrier (the phone) as their
only access method.  Does this have any bearing on the situation?


Glenn F. Leavell            glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu             404-542-3488
Systems Administrator
University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602


[Moderator's Note: Having telco as the transport mechanism would not
change things either way: after all, telco is not the one reviewing
and/or deleting mail. Whether or not Prodigy is a common carrier
remains to be seen.  PAT]