Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!imagen!auspyr!joe
From: joe@auspyr.UUCP (Joe Angelo)
Newsgroups: news.stargate
Subject: Re: Restrictions on Stargate
Message-ID: <2632@auspyr.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Mar-87 23:11:04 EST
Article-I.D.: auspyr.2632
Posted: Wed Mar 18 23:11:04 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Mar-87 04:39:20 EST
References: <1299@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Organization: Austec, Inc., San Jose, CA. USA
Lines: 23

> What I suggest is that those sites which receive the Stargate feed (we will
> be one of them), feed other sites on the condition that they pay some
> fraction of their receiver's subscription fee to Stargate, sort of an

This is an interesting idea from the view point of Stargate Customers --
they can slice thier price into a customer-group instead of *A* customer.
So, if siteA feeds 5 sites (siteB - siteF), and siteB - siteF feed 5 sites
each, then we have 800$ being paid collectively by 31 sites (or whatever).
Gee, that means Stargate doesn't collect 30 * 800$!!. Even a non-profit
business would find that hard to digest (well -- what do I know). Now, what
may be needed is a ''Second-party subscription fee'' were second hand
sites pay a considerably smaller fee than the first hand site; Stargate
could even allow first hand sites to charge second hand sites a shipping
fee. This would even work well for a second hand site that gets feeds
from two or more Stargate sites (why they would want to do that, i dunno!).

Like I said, what do I know!?

-- 
"No matter      Joe Angelo, Sr. Sys. Engineer @ Austec, Inc., San Jose, CA.
where you go,   ARPA: aussjo!joe@lll-tis-b.arpa       PHONE: [408] 279-5533
there you       UUCP: {sdencore,necntc,cbosgd,amdahl,ptsfa,dana}!aussjo!joe
are ..."        UUCP: {styx,imagen,dlb,gould,sci,altnet}!auspyr!joe