Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!husc6!hscfvax!pavlov
From: pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: FYI -- PC-P Price "Increase"
Message-ID: <700@hscfvax.harvard.edu>
Date: 3 Jan 89 02:45:10 GMT
References: <8901012214.AA25093@amon-re.cs.odu.edu>
Organization: Health Sciences Computing Facility, Harvard University
Lines: 53

In article <8901012214.AA25093@amon-re.cs.odu.edu>, tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) writes:
> 
> 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 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.  
> 
  No, Usenet users did not "abuse" the service, they simply took advantage
  of bargain-rate communications facilities.  Now that is gone, in all likeli-
  hood because TELENET, as you say, made a mistake (from their financial 
  point of view) and has now "corrected" it.

  Obviously, TELENET no longer wishes to use unlimited service as a "selling
  point".  The various people who claim that they will drop the service be-
  cause it is no longer cost-effective will go ahead and do so because their
  usage is such that this is most likely true.  That's the type of cost-analy-
  sis decision that many of us have to make frequently.  If these people are
  free to do so, why shouldn't TELENET ?  Does it have a monopoly on communi-
  cations services ???

  On the other hand, I don't understand the finger-pointing at Usenet people
  either, other than that there seems to be a tendency to equate "blame" with
  "analysis".  What usage level constitutes "abuse" ?  Does anyone ACTUALLY
  know that the people who sat on an open line all weekend did, in fact, place
  a heavier aggregate load on the system than the people who, say, used it
  for 30-50 hours ?

  Many message writers attribute a high level of intelligence to TELENET, tho
  assume that it is being applied in a devious and malevolent manner.  Just
  for the sake of being devil's advocate, I will assume the former but not the
  latter.  TELENET has analyzed its records, (maybe) performed some market-
  ing studies, and most certainly took a look at the competition, and has 
  concluded that the new rate structure will appeal to enough people and at 
  the same time yield a good (excellent ?) profit.  It will utilize some of 
  the additional revenue to improve access, since (I will guess) the usage 
  patterns of PC Pursuit are sufficiently different from full-rate usage, re-
  sulting in bottlenecks at the access points and excess capacity in the trans-
  mission lines.  I assume that the TELENET people factored the 60-hour con-
  cets into this.

  Maybe I am wrong.  But I haven't seen any solid information to indicate that
  this is the case.  Maybe TELENET is wrong.  If so, I am sure that they will
  adjust the rates until they get it right.

  greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny
  service and (I assume) its full-rate customers.
  assume the former but