Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:6141 news.admin:12856 alt.flame:30104 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,news.admin,alt.flame Subject: Re: UUPSI's new rules Keywords: By the fat clogged cerebellum of Patricia O Tuama, what a fine day to fleece another customer! (tm xanthian disgust, inc.) Message-ID: <1991Mar21.054111.5962@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 21 Mar 91 05:41:11 GMT References: <6LE25CK@taronga.hackercorp.com> <1991Mar19.020431.28067@jpradley.jpr.com> Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 48 jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley) writes: > When I first subscribed to the $75/mo service, one of the first > telephone conversations they had with me concerned what I wished for a > domain name, which they obtained for me quite efficiently and rapidly. > Part of their objections to my current use of their service involves > what PSI says is inappropriate adherence to my domain. > If you don't recall from earlier in this thread, John Eldredge is > PSI's Director of Sales & Marketing. In a letter just now received, he > writes: > "[you're paid through 5/8/91, etc.] "It is also clear that you are > including other people's machines under your domain which is not > consistent with the use of the '.com' domain." > After suggesting that I might want to consider switching to the UUPSI > Redistribution Service, at a higher tariff, he continues: > "[re-execute new verion of old contract, or sign the higher-rate > contract, for service beyond 4/15/91, etc.] "However, if the current > domain issue is not cleared up, we may have to settle this situation > sooner." > I don't have here any of the documents which define domains. Simple > question, net-folk: > I've got a domain: which sites may or not be IN my domain, and by what > criteria? Sure does sound like, under the accepted definition of "domain", UUPSI has indeed, as mentioned in an earlier posting, pulled a classic "bait and switch" confidence game on you. This is highly illegal, and district prosecuting attorneys love these cases; because they're a lead pipe cinch to prosecute (judges _detest_ business scams); look like one on the side of the angels, defending the little guy; and up the "win" column score for the guy/gal handling the case. Keep every scrap of paper, record your phone conversations, and save your email and any replies to your news postings from UUPSI representatives. If you have the time for the court appearances, you can have a lot of fun with this one. Kent, the man from xanth.