Xref: utzoo news.admin:12633 news.misc:6229 comp.mail.uucp:6044 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pcserver2!ddsw1!karl From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.misc,comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: New rules for UUPSI Summary: This is a little different than the original statement! Message-ID: <1991Mar10.023408.3693@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Date: 10 Mar 91 02:34:08 GMT References: <1991Mar04.221119.5075@utoday.com> <1991Mar5.141606.1797@uu.psi.com> <1991Mar07.014612.4537@utoday.com> Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Wheeling, IL Lines: 134 In article <1991Mar07.014612.4537@utoday.com> sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) writes: >In article <1991Mar5.141606.1797@uu.psi.com> schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) writes: >>Sean, >> >>You haven't posted a lot of context from the letter or about our >>service model. > >OK, here it is. I got several requests via e-mail, so I typed it in. >This is the letter I received Monday from PSI: > >---------------v------v-----BEGIN PSI LETTER---v-----v-------v----- > >From: John Eldredge, Director of Sales & Marketing >Subject: Changes in Terms and Conditions of UUPSI Service >Date: February 28, 1991 > >The original intention of the UUPSI service was to provide an >inexpensive fixed-price, retail service to hundreds if not thousands >of customers. It was our expectation to sign up leaf sites (i.e. >terminal nodes) throughout the US, and not to provide a path to >others. Interesting that they don't own the content of what they're selling, in most if not all of these circumstances. They might have a claim on the compilation (in the case of Usenet), but so do I since I repackaged it as well, and get news from more than one source :-) >Our fixed price methodology stands in constrast to the usage based >service providers who want to encourage as much use as possible since >they bill according to this use. My fixed price methodology stands in contrast to the usage based service providers who want to encourage as much use as possible since they bill according to this use. :-) :-) And I'll even give you that feed for free if you agree to take all the groups I get and you feed at least 2 other sites full feeds as well. There are others who don't charge at all, under any number of circumstances. All one has to do is ask around. In general if you're able and willing to help out, you don't end up paying anyone other than Ma Bell. This is as it has been here for quite some time. I believe that model should be encouraged, and I operate here to facilitate it. If you want "up to the second Usenet" then you might need something more direct, and have to pay for it. In that case perhaps you're a potential customer. >To delineate this policy more rigorously, we have added new terms and >conditions to our UUPSI Order Form: > > ``As this is a fixed price service, no third party traffic >outside of the organization or its staff is allowed. Specifically, 1: >no electronic mail whatsoever from another organization should be sent >or received through UUPSI; 2: if USENET/NEWS is fed to another >organization, no posting from that third party organization should be >sent through UUPSI.'' That is actually reasonable -- and not at all like what was first posted. I wouldn't agree to such a clause anyway. It flies in the face of what made Usenet work originally, the free flow of information without restriction or encumberance as the person who currently posesses it sees fit. That makes lots of sense, since you didn't generate or originate the traffic. In fact, it is that traffic which makes your service worth anything at all (we're talking news feeds now). I do, however, see that as the volume grows there is going to be a market for the other model of things (get only what you actually read at a site -- due to not being able to handle the volume alone!) Email can be an entirely different matter. There are lots of companies who have it in their best interest to keep you from passing third party traffic. They would like nothing more than to have a revenue stream from each email message.....and they might have a point there in some cases. Now, if PSI (or anyone else) can demonstrate that they can get the mail and news to me cheaper, easier and more reliably than I can with the current model of operation (cooperative interconnection) AND has a cooperative attitude rather than a combative one I would buy their service. That's only good common sense. I will, however, pay a little more to be free of the idea that a service provider is doing me a favor, or some of the ideological issues I disagree with. And I believe in voting with my (yes, my very own) wallet. >As per Section 10 of the order Form that you have signed, we are >informing you that effective the 15th of April 1991 these terms and >conditions are in effect. For customers looking to continue their >UUPSI services, no action is necessary as per this Order Form. For >customers who wish to end their UUPSI services do to this >clarification, please contact: > > Accounts Receivable > PSI, Inc. > Box 3850 > Reston, VA 22091 So they're giving you the chance to back out peaceably. That seems reasonable. > For those wishing no restraints in the area of third-party >traffic, a more epxensive service is now available under a separate >contract. Please contact UUPSI Sales in Reston for more details. I am >enclosing the new UUPSI Order Form for your information. I would predict that many business concerns wouldn't have a problem with it. Those are typically small businesses without any other connections (if you have an inter-company link for other purposes, you could violate this rather easily and accidentally). Large companies might have a problem, and individuals who desire to be able to feed others (and thus help the flow of Usenet) certainly would have a problem with it. Remember too that UUNET does charge by the minute. Also remember that they don't care if you pass third party traffic in any direction you wish, and I never had a problem with them. They're well-connected too..... On the other hand, UUNET is NOT cheap if you do any kind of volume. As a final note, I'm neither a UUNET or PSI customer. I did have a UUNET account, but don't need it anymore -- local connections are quite adaquate as it is. I tried to get a PSI contract to look over a couple of months back, but it never showed up (and I didn't persue it very heavily). From the posted letter above they wouldn't have fit my needs anyway. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Copyright 1991 Karl Denninger. Distribution by site(s) which restrict redistribution of Usenet news PROHIBITED.