Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: UUPSI's new rules Message-ID: Date: 15 Mar 91 02:02:14 GMT References: <1991Mar11.143824.24170@searchtech.com> <2517@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 22 In article <2517@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray) writes: > 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? To UUPSI, the cost for both is pretty much fixed. They're running a leased line into each area, hoping to find enough sites in that area to buy the service to pay for it. Up to the capacity of the leased line, there is no difference to them how much traffic each site generates. You're applying the logic of a variable-cost service to a fixed cost one. I presume that the pricing is designed so a full line feeding all the $75 sites it can handle will make a nice profit. If they only have a couple of such sites they lose money. They have to kick off freeloaders and force them to get their own lines or do without if they want to make a profit. I just wish they'd hurry up on the Houston POP. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"