Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uupsi!jpradley!jpr
From: jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: UUPSI's new rules
Message-ID: <1991Mar14.052623.26604@jpradley.jpr.com>
Date: 14 Mar 91 05:26:23 GMT
References: <1991Mar11.143824.24170@searchtech.com> <2517@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Organization: NYC Public Unix
Lines: 23

In article <2517@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray) writes:

>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.

I don't understand it on marketing grounds. Marty Schoffstall, earlier in
this thread, pointed out how little additional burden was placed on PSI's
facilities by handling mail and netnews on top of their commercial traffic.
Seems to me that if you have something that costs little, and you can sell
it thousands of times for barely any incremental cost for each sale, why
wouldn't the marketing decision be to go for the highest possible volume?

If they were to abandon their restatement of a contract to include terms,
which as Sean just pointed out, were not at all in their original contracts,
let alone in their brochures, and were to allow unimpeded and uncircumcsribed
traffic, not only would they gain lots more new customers (maybe even some of
those who have stated here that they would not now sign up with PSI), but who
knows: some of those "third-party" sites that they now propose to shut out
might grow up to be direct customers of PSI themselves.

 Jean-Pierre Radley   NYC Public Unix   jpr@jpradley.jpr.com   CIS: 72160,1341