Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!cs.odu.edu!tadguy From: tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: FYI -- PC-P Price "Increase" Message-ID: <8901012214.AA25093@amon-re.cs.odu.edu> Date: 1 Jan 89 22:14:00 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 34 watmath!looking!brad@uunet.UU.NET (Brad Templeton) writes: > ... which people like so much that they swamp it far beyond what > Telenet expected, and then they put a very reasonable cap on it to help > controll the excessive demand... > People who were running full time conferences and > usenet transfers over PC-pursuit were abusing it... > too many people took the "unlimited" too literally, and so they have > changed it. and att!chinet!ptownson@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (Patrick Townson) writes: > it was the ... Usenet people who probably abused > the service the most by keeping lines tied up for hours on end... > ... it was never intended for quite as much > use as some people gave it. Sorry, I don't buy that reasoning. The contract we all got with our PC Pursuit accounts was clear that it was an unlimited service. The advertising I saw used the fact that it was an unlimited service as a selling point. The people who manage TELENET are not idiots: TELENET must have known that people would take advantage of the "unlimitedness" of the service... I don't think it is fair to blame USENET and other "heavy" users for TELENET's change in policy. We (yes, I admit to being a heavy PC Pursuit user) were working within PC Pursuit's rules. Perhaps they should have done a little better research, or had written in a ceiling in the original contract? The point here is not that USENET users are "abusing" PC Pursuit, but that TELENET didn't correctly estimate the number of people that would take advantage of their offer for unlimited service. -- Tad Guy Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA