Xref: utzoo news.admin:12702 alt.flame:29468 comp.mail.uucp:6067 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!att!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: news.admin,alt.flame,comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: UUPSI's new rules Message-ID: <1991Mar12.134431.14294@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 12 Mar 91 13:44:31 GMT References: <1991Mar11.143824.24170@searchtech.com> <2517@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 62 murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray) writes: > mra@searchtech.com (Michael Almond) writes: >> PSI already mentioned that they are placing the leaf node >> restrictions only on the $75/month UUPSI customers. They, PSI, offer >> a second grade of service, with a higher price, that allows >> unrestricted UUPSI access. >> Why should this bother anyone? It sounds to me like PSI found that >> $75 couldn't cover the cost of non-leaf connections and needed to >> change their service a little. > Did you miss the post that mentioned how much this other service cost? > First, think about this: In a newsfeed, what's more costly, providing > the downlink-side (the rest of the world) of a full or sizeable feed > to a leaf site or (relatively) small cluster of sites, or providing > the uplink side for all the posts that originate from that site or > sites? Well, lessee, 15 MB/day for the down side, and an average of > (15 MB / 18000 sites ) * number of sites in this cluster, for > the up side. If this little cluster is, say 100 sites (!) the uplink > side is still well under 1% of the total cost in bandwidth. Mail > volume ignored, since even a high-volume mailing list or two run from > this cluster isn't going to put a dent in these numbers. > Cost for leaf site: $75. Cost for full site: exstimated at a little > under $300. > I had no opinion on this issue until one person mentioned what the > cost for an unrestricted site was. (BTW, can someone verify the > $825-875 quarterly cost for a full site?) Now I believe that this move > is strictly a *marketing* based decision on the part of PSI. Absolutely correct; they are trying to _force_ each customer that wants to take advantage of this cheap feed to connect to them directly and pay full freight (and fight over bandwidth, while UUPSI build an empire trying to keep up, the same problem UUNET is displaying today, and absolutely typical of reacting to problems rather than forecasting them and being ready before they can occur). If the problem were really upload traffic, they could simply limit uploads to 5% of downloads (a ridiculously generous allowance), which would make sure they weren't being hurt transporting an unfair amount of garbage compared to what the customer was buying in terms of bandwidth. Instead of this reasonable approach, they have chosen to dictate to their customers the type of connectivity those customers will display across the customer-UUPSI interface, which frankly is none of their damned business. Since they are selling connectivity rather than bandwidth, what their product really amounts to for the not-terribly-clever-about-news-software customer is a perpetual bondage into leafhood. Trying to convince those who have watched the net grow that it is going to behave the same with a large class of second class citizens who can't extend a feed to a friend in the time honored manner of the net without quadrupling the cost of a feed is a waste of time by all those attempting to defend UUPSI in this matter. This is bad juju for the net, period. Kent, the man from xanth.