sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) (03/05/91)
I just got a letter from PSI that is kind of disturbing. The thrust of this letter is that they are changing terms of user contracts to say that since we're paying so little for a News/Mail feed, we can't turn around and feed anyone else. I'm not sure how they plan to enforce this, but the new terms state that mail for ``another organization'' can not be sent nor received through PSI, and that if you send your UUPSI news feed to another site, no posts from that site can come back through PSI. I really question their decision on this. Especially when I constantly see PSI folk posting, ``We *are* the net'' all over the place. Well, I never knew the net had an attitude. Has anyone else out there gotten this letter? -- Sean Fulton sean@utoday.com UNIX Today! (516) 562-5430 /* The opinions expressed above are not those of my employer */
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (03/05/91)
PSI still has a few things to learn. This is the second time in a week they have annoyed me. In the first place, they're telemarketing off the UUCP maps again. I got called at my technical contact number by one of their sales reps. Does UUNET know that their customers are being thus courted? Secondly, no-3rd-party is a PRODIGY stunt. When a marketing decision (beat UUNET by offering flat rate accounts) ends up crippling the technical service, then the cart is before the horse. If all you are allowed to charge is $75 once plus $225/quarter, regardless of usage, then the overwhelming efficiency imperative becomes reducing that average customer activity rate! God help you if the customers get smart and start buying joint feeds -- then your arbitrary flat-rate decision doesn't look so good any more. So you take the logical step and diddle the service contracts to enforce one-site-only. But now what you're selling isn't really a net feed anymore! It's just a leaf feed -- a special case. Good enough for some customers... but still less functionality that the competition offers. Full connectivity mail and news feeds built this net. Without them PSI would have nothing to sell. If PSI doesn't offer people full feeds then they're leeching off the net, not contributing to it. Flat rate leaf site plans are fine, but they should not be the only service offered. I would personally save some money by switching from UUNET to PSI, but I WON'T do it because (a) they had the audacity to make a sales call at my site's UUCP map technical contact number, and (b) they don't sell full-connectivity feeds.
calhoun@usaos.uucp (Warren D. Calhoun) (03/05/91)
In <1991Mar04.221119.5075@utoday.com> sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) writes: >I just got a letter from PSI that is kind of disturbing. >The thrust of this letter is that they are changing terms of user >contracts to say that since we're paying so little for a News/Mail >feed, we can't turn around and feed anyone else. [stuff deleted] If this is true, PSI just lost one prospective customer. I was planning to sign up with them, but I will not do so under these restrictions. Would someone from PSI like to respond? -- | SSG W.D. Calhoun | UUCP: ...!uunet!usaos!calhoun | | Gas Turbine Engine (52F) Branch | INTERNET: calhoun%usaos@uunet.uu.net | | The U.S. Army Ordnance School | CompUServe: 76336.2212@compuserve.com | | Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 | Voice: (703) 664-3396/3595 |
schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) (03/05/91)
Sean, You haven't posted a lot of context from the letter or about our service model. Our goal has been and continues to be to focus on retail connections (hence our almost uniform written policy of "no" 3rd party traffic), and a flat fee ($75/mo) using local dialups, this has kept some number of sites from signing up since it was either implicit in our contracts our marketing literature and explicit in our oral communications, it was pointed out that we should make it more explicit in our written contract so we have. Other services charge by the minute, so the more you use, the happier they are, we don't, with the trebling of USENet in the last year some organizations have raised their prices, we decided not to, because in five years of operation we never have. As you know from the letter: - you got about 45 days notice in advance - you could get your money refunded - you had the option to do 3rd party traffic at a higher price - we specifically spell out that you CAN feed news to anyone else This WAS uniformly applied, this is the basis of fair business practice, and was precipitated by some very clear situations. Marty ------------------ In article <1991Mar04.221119.5075@utoday.com> sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) writes: >I just got a letter from PSI that is kind of disturbing. > >The thrust of this letter is that they are changing terms of user >contracts to say that since we're paying so little for a News/Mail >feed, we can't turn around and feed anyone else. > >I'm not sure how they plan to enforce this, but the new terms state >that mail for ``another organization'' can not be sent nor received >through PSI, and that if you send your UUPSI news feed to another >site, no posts from that site can come back through PSI. > >I really question their decision on this. Especially when I constantly >see PSI folk posting, ``We *are* the net'' all over the place. >Well, I never knew the net had an attitude. > >Has anyone else out there gotten this letter? > >-- >Sean Fulton sean@utoday.com >UNIX Today! (516) 562-5430 > /* The opinions expressed above are not those of my employer */
mbell@cie.uoregon.edu (Max Bell) (03/06/91)
In article <1991Mar04.221119.5075@utoday.com> of news.admin, sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) wrote: }I just got a letter from PSI that is kind of disturbing. } }The thrust of this letter is that they are changing terms of user }contracts to say that since we're paying so little for a News/Mail }feed, we can't turn around and feed anyone else. } }I'm not sure how they plan to enforce this, but the new terms state }that mail for ``another organization'' can not be sent nor received }through PSI, and that if you send your UUPSI news feed to another }site, no posts from that site can come back through PSI. Seems like one possible response would be to stop feeding PSI sites any Usenet news from the rest of the net, and drop all mail destined for PSI sites into /dev/null. The net works through co-operation. If PSI doesn't want non-PSI traffic taking up their resources, the rest of the net should respond in kind. /\ /\/ Max Bell | I used to think I'd emmigrate to escape the / \/ /\ mbell@cie.uoregon.edu | tyrants, but now I think I'll stay and make ------------------------------ | them leave instead.
schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) (03/06/91)
Well before you go immediately to the nuclear option, maybe you should get a few facts under your belt. Now I'm feeling bad for criticizing Dr. David Clark of MIT for his warning on cyber-terrorists. Maybe they really are out there. ;-) Marty > >Seems like one possible response would be to stop feeding PSI sites any >Usenet news from the rest of the net, and drop all mail destined for PSI >sites into /dev/null. The net works through co-operation. If PSI doesn't >want non-PSI traffic taking up their resources, the rest of the net >should respond in kind. > > /\ /\/ Max Bell | I used to think I'd emmigrate to escape the >/ \/ /\ mbell@cie.uoregon.edu | tyrants, but now I think I'll stay and make >------------------------------ | them leave instead.
horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (03/06/91)
In article <1991Mar04.221119.5075@utoday.com> sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) writes:
<
<I just got a letter from PSI that is kind of disturbing.
<
<The thrust of this letter is that they are changing terms of user
<contracts to say that since we're paying so little for a News/Mail
<feed, we can't turn around and feed anyone else.
Bullshit. If they want to raise their rates, let them. But they can't
stop you from passing along news. They don't own it.
<I'm not sure how they plan to enforce this, but the new terms state
<that mail for ``another organization'' can not be sent nor received
<through PSI, and that if you send your UUPSI news feed to another
<site, no posts from that site can come back through PSI.
Well, if they're going to be assholes, just tell the people downstream from
you to play around with the `Sender:' line. What goes around comes around.
--Scott
--
Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
horne@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520
203 436-1817 Residence: Rm 1817 Silliman College, Yale Univ
Uneasy lies the head that wears the _gao1 mao4zi_.xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (03/06/91)
sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) writes: >I just got a letter from PSI that is kind of disturbing. >The thrust of this letter is that they are changing terms of user >contracts to say that since we're paying so little for a News/Mail >feed, we can't turn around and feed anyone else. > [stuff deleted] calhoun%usaos@uunet.uu.net writes: > If this is true, PSI just lost one prospective customer. I was > planning to sign up with them, but I will not do so under these > restrictions. > Would someone from PSI like to respond? The last time we had someone try to pull this garbage on the net (the Stargate project) a bunch of people developed variations on the attached signature (the one I did then got quoted in a sociologist's study of the issues, a bit of an ego boost), which pretty thoroughly squashed that nonsense, since copyright violations carry real world penalties. The cost of trying to filter thousands of these copyright restricted articles out overwhelmed any value of restricting distribution of the collections. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> -- Copyright 1991 by Kent Paul Dolan, P.O. Box 390755, Mountain View, California 94039-0755. May be freely copied or quoted, with this notice intact, in any freely redistributable collection of news postings. Inclusion of this article in a collection of postings constitutes a contract by the collector that the collection is freely redistributable by all recipients.
jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) (03/06/91)
In article <1991Mar04.221119.5075@utoday.com> sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) writes: >I just got a letter from PSI that is kind of disturbing. >The thrust of this letter is that they are changing terms of user >contracts to say that since we're paying so little for a News/Mail >feed, we can't turn around and feed anyone else. >see PSI folk posting, ``We *are* the net'' all over the place. >Well, I never knew the net had an attitude. I'd say: drop them. That kind of policy is plain bull feces. Go with UUNET, they don't try to screw you over either with fees or with strange policies. Sheesh. What an attitude! That is entirely *not* in the spirit of UUCP or USENET. - Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com ps. Since I *am* shaman.com, I suppose I represent myself. pps. I only subscribe to UUNET, I don't work for them. But I have been very impressed with their service so far. Except for the current bogging down of their lines (which I am told will get fixed sometime this month), they have provided courteous, quick service and reasonable prices. -- Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com Shaman Consulting (607) 253-0687 VOICE "Bring your dead, dying shamans here!" (607) 253-7809 FAX/Modem
AMillar@cup.portal.com (Alan DI Millar) (03/06/91)
>Well before you go immediately to the nuclear option, maybe you should >get a few facts under your belt. Ok, give us the facts. So far all I've heard is people reporting that PSI will not allow you to relay mail from/to anyone else, making you strictly a leaf. Is this the case or not? Since Mail and UseNet are the subject at hand, maybe PSI or one of the offended customers would like to post the full text of the new contract, so we can all see exactly what it is we are talking about. - Alan Millar AMillar@cup.portal.com
horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (03/06/91)
In article <1991Mar5.210338.5356@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
<
<The cost of trying to filter thousands of these copyright restricted
<articles out overwhelmed any value of restricting distribution of the
<collections.
[...]
<Copyright 1991 by Kent Paul Dolan, P.O. Box 390755, Mountain View,
<California 94039-0755. May be freely copied or quoted, with this
<notice intact, in any freely redistributable collection of news
<postings. Inclusion of this article in a collection of postings
<constitutes a contract by the collector that the collection is
<freely redistributable by all recipients.
I agree that PSI is being unreasonable. But you can't claim copyright
violations. *You're* causing your article to be included "in a collection
of postings"; no one is asking for it. You sent it out over the wires--
and into software which you knew would accept it. Of course, you may try
to sue people who violate your "copyright" (assuming, of course, that you
have indeed obtained a copyright on each article you post--damn, you get
rapid service from the copyright office!), but I'll lay odds against you.
--Scott
--
Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne
horne@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520
203 436-1817 Residence: Rm 1817 Silliman College, Yale Univ
Uneasy lies the head that wears the _gao1 mao4zi_.jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (03/06/91)
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >> If this is true, PSI just lost one prospective customer. I was >> planning to sign up with them, but I will not do so under these >> restrictions. Likewise. That we had not contacted PSI this week is only because we've been busy processing higher priority interrupts. We'll now find another provider and will advocate that others do likewise. >The last time we had someone try to pull this garbage on the net (the >Stargate project) a bunch of people developed variations on the >attached signature (the one I did then got quoted in a sociologist's >study of the issues, a bit of an ego boost), which pretty thoroughly >squashed that nonsense, since copyright violations carry real world >penalties. If you kill the shrink-wrap bit about your copyright attaching GPV-style to a compilation, then it will fly. Don't try to sound as silly as software publishers. There are a couple of other things that can be done in conjunction with copyrighting individual articles. We could use a technique commonly used (and abused) in other areas called a litigation corporation. Simply put, we form a corporation whose charter is to pursue litigation against copyright violators of the members. If even 1% of the estimated couple of million people on this net bought in for, say, $20, the corporation would be a power to be dealt with. I'm particularly sensitive to this issue because as a commercial public access and Usenet redistribution site, dixie.com had to address the very same issue. In our case, once the issue was verbalized, the answer was so clear as to require no further thought. We have no right, morally or otherwise, to dictate what our customers do with the news and mail we forward. We are a common carrier just like the phone company. To see the absurdity of the PSI policy, contemplate the reaction if Ma Bell tried to tell us what we could do with the information (voice or otherwise) transmitted over their facilities. We are fully aware that people we feed redistribute to others who might otherwise be our customers. Indeed we encourage that architecture. We realize that the tighter the interconnect matrix, the more valuable our service is. We further realize that as people become reliant on the net, they will be willing to pay for the highly reliable and tightly coupled service we sell. This situation is analogous to the software shrink-wrap license debacle. Many publishers think that they can force people to pay money by blundgeoning them with so-called license agreements and threats of suits. We take the attitude that we will gain customers by offering a service of such high quality that they gladly pay for it. This is not a new concept; some call it the Boreland Principle when applied to software. PSI obviously has not yet learned that lesson. There are several other proactive options available to us to combat this problem. Among them: * Offer outbound-only connectivity to those who are fed by PSI. Thus, news from the branches under PSI-fed sites would have an alternative outlet. * Other companies like dixie.com can offer competative services for much cheaper prices. For example, we offer a full telebit slotted news feed for a flat rate of $29 a month. (slotted means that the fed site has to reserve a time slot each day to receive its feed. That lets us maximize our phone line usage. We'll probably have to increase this price as we gain more experience but not by much.) It does not cost that much to set up such a site, especially if you have extra CPU cycles laying around and only want the site to break even. * As the ultimate draconian weapon, the net could simply bit-bucket any article handled by PSInet. This is a severe option, one I hope we don't have to use but one I'm certainly prepared to use if it comes to that. My advice to PSI is this: Can the coercion crap. It has never worked very well in the past and is a dead concept in this world of instant communications. Learn something about customer service. Buy and study the book "Total Customer Service" by Davidow & Uttal if all else fails. Learn that the word "can't", especially as applies to customer service, is strictly verboden. Understand that you KEEP - as opposed to getting - customers by keeping them happy. People don't mind spending money if they are satisfied with what they get. Telling them that they cannot do something with something they've bought does not go far toward that happiness. Finally, realize what your purpose in the food chain is. You are a carrier and not an originator of data. To the rest of the net: This is just the tip of the iceberg. The comming horrors of NREN pale this issue in comparison. If you don't know what NREN is, find out. (Hint: It's the Internet with more government intereference and a large dollip of IBM-style marketing and user fees lathered on.) Get involved. We're gonna have to fight for this resource we now enjoy. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (03/06/91)
In article <39895@cup.portal.com> AMillar@cup.portal.com (Alan DI Millar) writes: >Ok, give us the facts. So far all I've heard is people reporting that >PSI will not allow you to relay mail from/to anyone else, making you >strictly a leaf. Is this the case or not? Since Mail and UseNet are >the subject at hand, maybe PSI or one of the offended customers would >like to post the full text of the new contract, so we can all see >exactly what it is we are talking about. I am neither PSI nor a customer, but they sent me a sales folder this week, including their standard Usenet/mail contract. Included in the packet were all sorts of promotional materials and a cover letter, with the joys of internetworking described at length, but NO mention of 3rd-party limitations anywhere. Here are some excerpts from the contract. Terms marked ** are never defined! Boy, do these guys need a good contracts lawyer. ------------------- "This contract is by and between Performance Systems International, Inc., ... ('PSI') and the Customer (as above) for provision by PSI or its subcontractors of certain electronic communications services. "1. Licensee** desires an Electronic Mail and/or USENET News feed. Payments received after..." etc etc "7. PSI, Inc. [instead of 'PSI' as defined in the preamble - ed], or other relevant authorities may determine inappropriate usage of this account** and the privilege may be revoked at PSI's discretion. Should this occur, Licensee will be informed in writing of this action. "10. As this is a fixed price service, no third party traffic outside of the organization** or its staff is allowed. Specifically, 1: no electronic mail whatsoever from another organization should be sent OR RECEIVED [emphasis added -- ed] through UUPSI**; 2: if USENET/NEWS** is fed to another organization, no posting from that third party organization should be sent through UUPSI." ------------------- If paragraph 10 were enforced as written, customers would be unable to receive mail from anyone except within their own site or from PSI employees, since no mail from a third party should be received through UUPSI! Astonishing. I seriously question whether PSI knows what its own contract says. Paragraph 10 does appear to allow one-way news subfeeds, if the subfed sites never post anything. All in all this is a (rather clumsily worded) leaf site contract. Leaf site status is never mentioned in PSI's advertising to the best of my knowledge, but once they land you, there's the language.
david@slc6.INS.CWRU.Edu (David Nerenberg) (03/06/91)
>> The net works through co-operation. Exactly! >>If PSI doesn't >>want non-PSI traffic taking up their resources, the rest of the net >>should respond in kind. After all, if they refuse to carry "our" traffic, why should we carry theirs? And, by the way, ins't part of the "agreement" of belonging to the collective Internet connecting to one other site and maintaining that connection for full connectivity? If PSI doesn't, cut them off. They can be thier own net for a little while, and they will be back. People connected through PSI should give them hell. Dave -- david@ins.cwru.edu David Nerenberg 73107,177 Compuserve Information Network Services NY: H-516-751-6344 Case Western Reserve University W-516-751-8111 W-216-368-2982 H-216-754-2063
schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) (03/06/91)
>And, by the way, ins't part of the "agreement" of belonging to the collective >Internet connecting to one other site and maintaining that connection for >full connectivity? If PSI doesn't, cut them off. They can be thier own >net for a little while, and they will be back. > And that is done. Your off the mark. Don't mix the Internet culture with the USENET culture, while they aren't disjoint sets, they are not co-centric either. There are a few cases outside of PSI/PSINet where full connectivity is disallowed, but in almost all cases this was at the instigation of the US government, based on their policy decisions. Marty
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (03/07/91)
According to schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall): >Our goal has been and continues to be to focus on retail connections >(hence our almost uniform written policy of "no" 3rd party traffic) ... I guess they're not interested in carrying Usenet, then. A pity. I might have been a customer... -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "All this is conjecture of course, since I *only* post in the nude. Nothing comes between me and my t.b. Nothing." -- Bill Coderre
jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley) (03/07/91)
In article <1991Mar04.221119.5075@utoday.com> sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) writes: >I just got a letter from PSI that is kind of disturbing. > >The thrust of this letter is that they are changing terms of user >contracts to say that since we're paying so little for a News/Mail >feed, we can't turn around and feed anyone else. > >I'm not sure how they plan to enforce this, but the new terms state >that mail for ``another organization'' can not be sent nor received >through PSI, and that if you send your UUPSI news feed to another >site, no posts from that site can come back through PSI. > >I really question their decision on this. Especially when I constantly >see PSI folk posting, ``We *are* the net'' all over the place. >Well, I never knew the net had an attitude. > >Has anyone else out there gotten this letter? I haven't received the letter yet, but I've been expecting it. Nothing I read in the literature or the contract for the $75.00/month service implied this limitation. They seem to be defining "another organization" to be any other machine which hass uucp connections to mine, thereby immediately making the domain which they registered for me be a single site. You going to revise your last article? Jean-Pierre Radley NYC Public Unix jpr@jpradley.jpr.com CIS: 72160,1341
sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) (03/07/91)
In article <1991Mar5.141606.1797@uu.psi.com> schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) writes: >Sean, > >You haven't posted a lot of context from the letter or about our >service model. OK, here it is. I got several requests via e-mail, so I typed it in. This is the letter I received Monday from PSI: ---------------v------v-----BEGIN PSI LETTER---v-----v-------v----- From: John Eldredge, Director of Sales & Marketing Subject: Changes in Terms and Conditions of UUPSI Service Date: February 28, 1991 The original intention of the UUPSI service was to provide an inexpensive fixed-price, retail service to hundreds if not thousands of customers. It was our expectation to sign up leaf sites (i.e. terminal nodes) throughout the US, and not to provide a path to others. Our fixed price methodology stands in constrast to the usage based service providers who want to encourage as much use as possible since they bill according to this use. To delineate this policy more rigorously, we have added new terms and conditions to our UUPSI Order Form: ``As this is a fixed price service, no third party traffic outside of the organization or its staff is allowed. Specifically, 1: no electronic mail whatsoever from another organization should be sent or received through UUPSI; 2: if USENET/NEWS is fed to another organization, no posting from that third party organization should be sent through UUPSI.'' As per Section 10 of the order Form that you have signed, we are informing you that effective the 15th of April 1991 these terms and conditions are in effect. For customers looking to continue their UUPSI services, no action is necessary as per this Order Form. For customers who wish to end their UUPSI services do to this clarification, please contact: Accounts Receivable PSI, Inc. Box 3850 Reston, VA 22091 For those wishing no restraints in the area of third-party traffic, a more epxensive service is now available under a separate contract. Please contact UUPSI Sales in Reston for more details. I am enclosing the new UUPSI Order Form for your information. Enclosure -------------^---------^-------END OF PSI LETTER-----^-----^----^-- -- Sean Fulton sean@utoday.com UNIX Today! (516) 562-5430 /* The opinions expressed above are not those of my employer */
ralphs@seattleu.edu (Ralph Sims) (03/07/91)
jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley) writes:
They seem to be defining "another organization" to be any other machine which
hass uucp connections to mine, thereby immediately making the domain which the
registered for me be a single site.
[and I stick my neck out and spouteth...]
This would be profit-protecting and control of a market (perhaps limited,
but it does protect their investments, etc.). On the other hand, I would
imagine PSI's cost for a newsfeed is minimal (if not free). They have no
additional costs incurred by having sites provide downstream feeds, but
may have additional costs in providing the pipeline back UP the pike for
Usenet and mail articles, although again, this is probably minimal. Who
ARE PSI's newsfeeds? Since they are on the Internet, there is minimal
storage needed, as articles go out via SMTP and NNTP.
So what might this mean? They could probably broaden their userbase
for very little impact on their investment if they allowed for an
unrestricted flow of traffic in and out of ALL downstream sites. I
kind of think they've cut themselves out of a sizeable portion of the
market. Also, XYZ Corp. is going to be a little upset when articles
from their 'cross-country susidiaries don't get to where they are
addressed. Not their intent? Then their 'contract' needs to be
modified.
Remember, they are in the business for the money, and their userbase
indicates a LOT of big-money businesses and institutions are using
their services.
--
halcyon!ralphs@seattleu.edu
The 23:00 News and Mail Service - +1 206 292 9048 - Seattle, WA USA
+++ A Waffle Iron +++pda@Dixie.Com (Paul D. Anderson) (03/07/91)
AMillar@cup.portal.com (Alan DI Millar) writes: >So far all I've heard is people reporting that >PSI will not allow you to relay mail from/to anyone else, making you >strictly a leaf. >- Alan Millar AMillar@cup.portal.com Let me 'splain what I've noticed here in Atlanta. I run a Public Access Unix system here, delivering mail/news/source archives. I'm not making a cent on it. You have to charge UUNET rates to make money. My rates allow me to cover equipment failures and phone costs, but that's it. But you wouldn't believe the attitude that my (unix news) friends have toward the business aspect of a 'commercial' news site. Some days it feels that they are almost hostile. I garuantee a certain level of service (eg: no busy signals, enough spool space, long expire intervals) that few other sites in atlanta do. The system is almost continuously monitored. But these folks are what you'd expect from hobbyists: they won't spend an additional dime if they can get it for free. I even tell them to share a newsfeed cost from our site with their friends and they won't do it. How much are we talking about? Full feed: $30/month. (It is half the cost for a partial feed.) Collect 5 to 10 bucks from each downstream site and split it around. But they won't hear of it. They would rather have the hassle of running multiple feeds in from different sites who each give them a 'free' partial feed. What a mess. I wish someone like me had been around when I first had had to first set up news and needed someone to tell me how it worked. I have been telling folks that the net (as we know it) is gonna dissapear, that local hobbyists will have to pick up the tab for long distance, that the free ride party is about to be over. The FIDOnet folks have known this for years, and they have a rate structure to handle it. Usenetters here just glaze over and won't hear what is being said. It's scary. The only folks that pay attention are the ones that have been into it since before 1980, cause they've seen the net evolve a few times. Here at Dixie, we sell "service". We serve as a transport for local sites that can't handle the volume of redistributing a full news feed. I also archive as much stuff as I can get my hands on, again for sites that don't have much disk. I collect as many current "where to find it" listings as I can, for sites that don't have the time. What sets us apart is service. Hell, anyone can run news. But can you do it well? I do. I've hacked news code until I was blue in the face to get it to run well. I had a site uptime of 99.6% last year (dead serious, I kept a log of hours). But there are many sites that are down hours per day. So what people come to expect from us is "Quality". I don't sell data (that I didn't originate). I will ship most any source I have on the system via mail to anyone that requests it. I encourage my users to give it away and help their friends. I want them to set up uucp connections to help with that transfer. Why? Because by doing this I will become known as a provider of quality service. And that will cause others to want to have direct access to the services this site provides. I don't restrict mail flowing thru my site, even when it has been generated by non-paying customers. There are several reasons: PR is high, volume is moderate, fast delivery sets the standard as this being a quality machine. It sets a standard that others will want to use, and will come to purchase as a direct service in the future. If I find someone is abusing the service by routing too much mail through our long distance connections, then I call them on the phone and ask them to subscribe or reroute. I explain that it's costing me money, and most of the time I receive a favorable response. In two years, I've never had a serious problem. To say that PSI will not accept mail and news from folks that aren't subscribers is to seriously reduce the effectiveness of PSInet. Plus PSI will seriously have to special-case its software to reject mail from sites that are not in the To:/From: field of any message. Finally, what PSI proposes, if implemented in SW, to reject news articles from folks that are not on PSI's net, will be damn near impossible to implement effectively and continue to provide a good level of news flow to PSI's subscribers. Implementing it contractually may be (more likely) possible, but the first time PSI has to take someone to court over feeding "non-contractual" traffic onto the net, PSI might as well kiss its collective self goodbye, as many sites will drop their connection within a week of any such occurrence. (As a postscript while re-reading this, I had the following idea: What's to keep me from getting a newsfeed from you, re-distributing it, then taking the downstream followups and feeding it back to UUNET, for them to redistribute. PSI has a serious problem in this case. I've completely stayed within the contract of what you propose, yet I've completely stepped around the fact that you want to develop a lot of sites in major cities. ) What you are facing is the same problem that AT&T faces with overseas networks. How do you bill for interconnection? Who benefits the most? Does AT&T bill Europe for the service it provides Europe? Or does Europe bill AT&T for the service it provides America. The answer is (I hate to say this) "simple". You don't bill for major node interconnection. Primarily because both networks will benefit from an increased user base. Since a longtime friend on network AT&T will now be able to talk to longtime friend on network "Europe", and they will reciprocate in who call's whom, then both networks will benefit from the source of additional revenue. How do I, as a user, choose PSInet or ALTERnet? By whoever gets me to the BIGGEST set of users and offers the best rate, etc. (By the by, last I looked, ALTERnet does not restrict redistribution. Putting a link in to PSI vs putting a link in for ALTERnet does not cost me enough more where it will be a stumbling block.) It would benefit PSI, as well, to connect to other sites that provide a huge number of users. Why? Because it will directly benefit your other users on PSInet, as the user base will be larger. If PSI's rate structure does not support this, then maybe the ALTERnet network can. Competition will, ultimately, force multiple rate structures, multiple levels of service and unusual strategic alliances. You know: seems that PSI would want redistribution centers for news locally managed in major cities. It would reduce the load on PSI's network by generating the data for each newsfeed site locally to that city. But you don't get something for nothing. There has to be a value add component for the site in that city. Too, redistribution centers would help position PSI as a long term growth company since PSI will not have to deal with an explosive growth problem. -paul -- * Paul Anderson * Dixie Communications * (404) 578-9547 * pda@dixie.com *
kevink@bryant.NCD.COM (Kevin Kelleher) (03/08/91)
I am a customer of UUPSI, who has not (yet) received the letter. I have one question: What will UUPSI do with any e-mail/news handed to them which is from a third party? Will it be returned, or dropped or will they send us nasty note threating to disconnect us (or something) for now following the terms of the contract? Kevin Kelleher kevink@ncd.com Network Computing Devices (NCD) (415) 691-2593
steve@nuchat.sccsi.com (Steve Nuchia) (03/08/91)
In article <w70ey3w164w@halcyon.uucp> halcyon!ralphs@seattleu.edu (Ralph Sims) writes: >additional costs incurred by having sites provide downstream feeds, but >may have additional costs in providing the pipeline back UP the pike for >Usenet and mail articles, although again, this is probably minimal. Who Think about it for a nanosecond. Assume the downstream site has an alternative feed, and uplinks local articles to both, say, uunet and a PSI customer. PSI drops the copy they receive from their customer on the floor, in blatant violation of the norms of civilized behaviour. A few minutes later nntp fires up and brings in the other copy from uunet, which PSI localizes and forwards to its subscribers. This is utterly preposterous. -- Steve Nuchia South Coast Computing Services (713) 964-2462 "Innocence is a splendid thing, only it has the misfortune not to keep very well and to be easily misled." --- Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (03/08/91)
The tempest in the teapot never seems to rest. PSI offers a service for a fee. They tell you what you are getting in quite clear terms. If you don't like their terms, buy from someone else. But don't complain that PSI doesn't do what you want, or that someone who does do what you want costs too much. TANSTAAFL. <csg>
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/08/91)
In article <29257@cs.yale.edu> horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes: > Bullshit. If they want to raise their rates, let them. But they can't > stop you from passing along news. They don't own it. But they can refuse to accept news from third parties. It's sort of like cutting their own throats, because what they're *selling* is faster news access... including news from non-PSI folks. Since this third-party news will eventually find its way into the Internet and loop back around through UUPSI anyway, they're not even saving anything on this, just slowing it down. Sounds a bit thick to me. Now third-party mail, that I can understand. That's a reasonable restriction. But most of the value of news comes from third parties. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
garvey@johnny5.uucp (Joe Garvey) (03/08/91)
In article <147415@pyramid.pyramid.com>, csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > The tempest in the teapot never seems to rest. > > PSI offers a service for a fee. They tell you what you are getting in quite > clear terms. If you don't like their terms, buy from someone else. But don't > complain that PSI doesn't do what you want, or that someone who does do what > you want costs too much. TANSTAAFL. > > <csg> I think the point is, that PSI "takes" what they sell from the rest of us. Would you be happy if something you published were put in an anthology of unix security articles and sold... and you didn't get a cent. Even though you had said this information could otherwise be freely distributed? Wouldn't it get your dander up if someone abused your generosity this way? TANSTAAFL is right... but you've got it backwords. It's PSI that's trying to get the free lunch. -- Joe Garvey uucp: sumax!quick!johnny5!garvey J5 Research map entries are wrong for johnny5. They're Bothell, Wa. being fixed. Please use address above.
sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) (03/08/91)
In article <39895@cup.portal.com> AMillar@cup.portal.com (Alan DI Millar) writes: > >Ok, give us the facts. So far all I've heard is people reporting that >PSI will not allow you to relay mail from/to anyone else, making you >strictly a leaf. Is this the case or not? Since Mail and UseNet are >the subject at hand, maybe PSI or one of the offended customers would >like to post the full text of the new contract, so we can all see >exactly what it is we are talking about. Here it is: ---------v-------v---------v----LETTER FROM PSI---v------v---------v From: John Eldredge, Director of Sales & Marketing Subject: Changes in Terms and Condistions of UUPSI Service Date: February 28, 1991 The original intention of the UUPSI service was to provide an inexpensive fixed-price, retail service to hundreds if not thousands of customers. It was our expectation to sign up leaf sites (i.e. terminal nodes) throughout the US, and not to provide a path to others. Our fixed price methodology stands in constrast to the usage based service providers who want to encourage as much use as possible since they bill according to this use. To delineate this policy more rigorously, we have added new terms and conditions to our UUPSI Order Form: ``As this is a fixed price service, no third party traffic outside of the organization or its staff is allowed. Specifically, 1: no electronic mail whatsoever from another organization should be sent or received through UUPSI; 2: if USENET/NEWS is fed to another organization, no posting from that third party organization should be sent through UUPSI.'' As per Section 10 of the order Form that you have signed, we are informing you that effective the 15th of April 1991 these terms and conditions are in effect. For customers looking to continue their UUPSI services, no action is necessary as per this Order Form. For customers who wish to end their UUPSI services due to this clarification, please contact: Accounts Receivable PSI, Inc. Box 3850 Reston, VA 22091 For those wishing no restraints in the area of third-party traffic, a more epxensive service is now available under a separate contract. Please contact UUPSI Sales in Reston for more details. I am enclosing the new UUPSI Order Form for your information. Enclosure -------------^-------^-------END OF LETTER---^---^-----------^---- -- Sean Fulton sean@utoday.com UNIX Today! (516) 562-5430 /* The opinions expressed above are not those of my employer */
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) (03/08/91)
jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley) writes: > In article <1991Mar04.221119.5075@utoday.com> sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) w > >The thrust of this letter is that they are changing terms of user > >contracts to say that since we're paying so little for a News/Mail > >feed, we can't turn around and feed anyone else. > > > >I'm not sure how they plan to enforce this, but the new terms state > >that mail for ``another organization'' can not be sent nor received > >through PSI, and that if you send your UUPSI news feed to another > >site, no posts from that site can come back through PSI. [...] > They seem to be defining "another organization" to be any other machine which > hass uucp connections to mine, thereby immediately making the domain which th > registered for me be a single site. I'd just like to point out that what PSI seem to be trying to do seems to be no more Evil and Rude than what UKnet does to all of the UK UUCP sites. Specifically: To become a UK .co.uk UUCP site, you must pay a quarterly fee to UKnet, amounting to $170/quarter or thereabouts at current exchange rates. If you take any amount of news, you must pay a flat-rate fee of $40/month to UKnet. Even if you only take one newsgroup. This payment entitles one news site to obtain news and reply to it. UKnet state: "The definition of a news-site is a single machine or a group of machines in a single organisation/institution (sic) on a single site" "Every site which polls ukc will be liable for the news and mail charges for any other site which they poll (or are polled by) unless the secondary site has registered with ukc." This last paragraph has the same practical effect as saying that you can't distribute news to a site not registered with UKC/UKnet. So if you're all going to flame PSI, there are certain other organizations you might like to have a word with... mathew [ The worst bit is that when UKnet say "We are the net", they mean it. ]
mark@infocomm.com (03/09/91)
In article <1991Mar08.131558.18654@utoday.com>, sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) writes: > ---------v-------v---------v----LETTER FROM PSI---v------v---------v > stuff deleted > ``As this is a fixed price service, no third party traffic > outside of the organization or its staff is allowed. Specifically, 1: > no electronic mail whatsoever from another organization should be sent > or received through UUPSI; 2: if USENET/NEWS is fed to another > organization, no posting from that third party organization should be > sent through UUPSI.'' I was under the basic impression that the minimum service you could subscribe to was a 'mail forwarder' (with out a newsfeed). To me the definition of this service is already in conflict with item # 1 in the above quote from their letter. This is for a leaf site with no other connections at all. i.e. you can ONLY send mail to people at uupsi. Would anyone be interested in paying for this service?? :-) Let's assume that they really meant that you were actually allowed to receive mail to/from the rest of the world with your "organization" as an endpoint. Given this, we still don't have a clear definition of "organization": - Does it mean the one and only machine that does the calling? Probably not. - Does it mean all machines that you forward to on your local ethernet? Maybe. - Does it mean all the machines in your building (or campus) that you forward stuff for via ethernet or serial uucp means? Maybe. - Does it mean all the machines at your field locations (i.e. sales offices, etc), that are part of your company "organization", but use your central site as their system administration and mail hub? Maybe. - Does it mean any machines employees and or consultants may have at other locations (home for instance), which are unofficially part of your "organization"? Maybe. - How does anyone (including PSI), distinguish between a site that is truely not a part of your organization and who is? Who knows. Given all of the ambiguities, and the differences in the correct and incorrect mailer (both MUA, and delivery agents) configurations that exist today, it doesn't take much to realize that any attempt to enforce this intesting policy would reduce RELIABLE communications to a purely literal interpretation of item #1, namely your connection machine could only send and/or receive stuff to/from the machines at psi. I'm not flaming anything, just bringing up obvious questions. -- Mark Pizzolato - INFO COMM Computer Consulting, Redwood City, Ca PHONE: (415)369-9366 UUCP: decwrl!infopiz!mark or uunet!lupine!infopiz!mark DOMAIN: mark@infocomm.com
horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (03/09/91)
In article <starship-21ZNA9@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <29257@cs.yale.edu> horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) writes: << Bullshit. If they want to raise their rates, let them. But they can't << stop you from passing along news. They don't own it. < <But they can refuse to accept news from third parties. Indeed they *can*. Whether that's a good policy is a different matter. <Since this third-party news <will eventually find its way into the Internet and loop back around through <UUPSI anyway, they're not even saving anything on this, just slowing it <down. Sounds a bit thick to me. Right. And presumably their feeds come in long-distance, so they're paying for news which they could've received for nothing! They obviously just want to be assholes. <Now third-party mail, that I can understand. That's a reasonable restriction. Yes, as you can't let people send their mail through you and stick you with the huge long-distance charges. --Scott -- Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne horne@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 203 436-1817 Residence: Rm 1817 Silliman College, Yale Univ Uneasy lies the head that wears the _gao1 mao4zi_.
rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams) (03/09/91)
> Our fixed price methodology stands in constrast to the usage based > service providers who want to encourage as much use as possible since > they bill according to this use. Funny, I don't remember you being around when we discussed fixed rates versus connect based charging. Actually, I dont even remember you being in the UUCP business until about three years after we made that decision. It's fascinating how you were able to determine our motivation when separated by time and space (and facts...) Anyway... We originally examined fixed prices and rejected them as unworkable. We wanted a system that would scale into the thousands (even though this was a "crazy" concept 4 years ago). We settled on the time based charging (note that this IS different than volume based charging) as the most equitable way of recovering the costs. (Notice that we did chose a fixed base charge in addition to the variable. The rational was that the fixed charge paid for the fixed expenses: e.g. rent, salary, computer and that the variable charge paid for the items that had to increase as the load went up: e.g. adding modems, serial ports, memory & cpu [on top of the base system. More simultaneous uucicos use more memory and cpu]. The connect based pricing encourages efficiency, not taking as much as possible. If we wanted to force usage up, we'd mandate everyone accepting a full newsfeed rather than allowing newsgroup level selection. A fixed price scheme does not encourage people to move the data as efficiently as possible. In fact it encourages them to use slow modems and make poor use of resources. One port on a machine can serivce 24 hours of connect time. You could service 32 users at 9600 bps for the same resources a 300 bps user hogs (presuming equal amounts of data). With no message units or connect charges, why should anyone bother. I'm convinced that fixed charging breaks down completely at higher numbers of customers (somewhere in the hundreds). You MUST encourage people to be as efficient as possible to keep things economical for all. When you charge by the hour, you encourage people to buy faster modems. (Dumping a 2400 bps modem in favor of a trailblazer would reduce your connect charges by a factor of 4 or more. It probably pays for the cost of the modem in 6 months or less. Thats a business case most managers can accept.) Fixed rate pricing effectively has the efficient users subsidizing the inefficient users (I.e. they use different amounts of computer resources but pay the same). We chose to attempt to make everyone pay their fair share. PSI offers fixed rates with 81 users (count from the current uucp map). If they plan to reach thousands they'll have to charge based on resource usage. Things look real easy from two orders of magnitude smaller... ---rick
peter@micromuse.co.uk (Peter Galbavy) (03/09/91)
In article <ZTTHy10w163w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: > >I'd just like to point out that what PSI seem to be trying to do seems to be >no more Evil and Rude than what UKnet does to all of the UK UUCP sites. > Hooray - I just woke up this morning, and saw the 50 messages in this new thread, and thought exactly what Mathew writes in his followup. But I thought I would wait before posting my version, in case there was one here. I was luckily right. Check the .sig, and see that this is from micromuse.co.uk ;-> > >Specifically: > >To become a UK .co.uk UUCP site, you must pay a quarterly fee to UKnet, >amounting to $170/quarter or thereabouts at current exchange rates. > Mathew forgot to mention the obligatory membership of the UKUUG (UK Unix Systems Users Group - about $300/year company). > >If you take any amount of news, you must pay a flat-rate fee of $40/month to >UKnet. Even if you only take one newsgroup. 30 pounds UK. This has not gone down since I know, whilst the cost of getting news is now being shared between more sites. > >This payment entitles one news site to obtain news and reply to it. UKnet >state: > > "The definition of a news-site is a single machine or a group of machines > in a single organisation/institution (sic) on a single site" > > "Every site which polls ukc will be liable for the news and mail charges > for any other site which they poll (or are polled by) unless the > secondary site has registered with ukc." > >This last paragraph has the same practical effect as saying that you can't >distribute news to a site not registered with UKC/UKnet. Wait for it - there have been discussions in the uk.* groups that UKC/UKNet (In my eyes the same - even if they say otherwise) - this includes local site NNTP feeds. Also they reserve the right to order you to disconnect another site if it not registered. It's in the contract. The latest newsletter - paper would you believe - lists a number of sites which has left the UKNet and says something along the lines of "Make sure NO mail goes to these sites and that you must remove them from your maps.". Also for mail, the domain you register is it. You cannot allow subdomains to get to the outside world without making sure you are doing full site hiding. Which I think is allowed :-) Some folks in the US are amazed and to quote one person "... but xxxx.com is MY domain, I can do what I like with it." Not a .uk domain you can't. > >So if you're all going to flame PSI, there are certain other organizations >you might like to have a word with... > > >mathew >[ The worst bit is that when UKnet say "We are the net", they mean it. ] Yep. There is NO choice in the UK. I will explain what I mean if you want. NOTICE to UK people. I know about UKIPNET (good luck guys), but until then, is anyone out there serious about getting together to share the costs of a US link, or anyone in the UK not going via UKC willing to feed us, and others. I am quite willing to pay the UKC (maybe more) rate for the moment to anyone else, as long as I do not have the restrictions imposed on me. Note: This is not a notice of me leaving the UKNet YET. Sadly, restictedly yours, -- Peter Galbavy Writing at Home, but working for Micromuse Ltd, who don't even know I am posting, and probably don't care, so this ain't nothing to do with them... But if you must, call me daytime on +44 71 352 7774. **BEEP**
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (03/10/91)
In article <1991Mar7.191703.12996@nuchat.sccsi.com> steve@nuchat.sccsi.com (Steve Nuchia) writes: >Assume the downstream site has an alternative feed, and uplinks local >articles to both, say, uunet and a PSI customer. You ignore the fact that the cost of a UUNET account -- even one for mail and posting news only -- will cost about the same as a full feed PSI account. What's the point in this downstream site taking a feed off of the PSI customer and UUNET, when he can get skip both of them and go straight to PSI for the same money and less hassle? -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/10/91)
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: > This last paragraph has the same practical effect as saying that you can't > distribute news to a site not registered with UKC/UKnet. Of course, PSI doesn't say that. They say "you can't ship another site's traffic through us". You can feed all you want, but those sites had better have another way to get news back to the rest of the net. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) (03/10/91)
This is madness. PSI don't want your news, they want your money - it's
PSI customers that want the news and email. Dropping email designed for
the customers into /dev/null hurts the customers, not PSI.
I take it you don't pay PSI for any service yourself. If you're trying
to persuade others not to either, fine - but don't do it with threats.
I'm not a great fan of the market, but it seems to me the only useful
way to prevent this happening is to set up competitive alternatives.
____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley aipdc@uk.ac.ed.castle \ /
/\__/ Trust me. I know what I'm doing. \/karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (03/10/91)
In article <1991Mar07.014612.4537@utoday.com> sean@utoday.com (Sean Fulton) writes: >In article <1991Mar5.141606.1797@uu.psi.com> schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) writes: >>Sean, >> >>You haven't posted a lot of context from the letter or about our >>service model. > >OK, here it is. I got several requests via e-mail, so I typed it in. >This is the letter I received Monday from PSI: > >---------------v------v-----BEGIN PSI LETTER---v-----v-------v----- > >From: John Eldredge, Director of Sales & Marketing >Subject: Changes in Terms and Conditions of UUPSI Service >Date: February 28, 1991 > >The original intention of the UUPSI service was to provide an >inexpensive fixed-price, retail service to hundreds if not thousands >of customers. It was our expectation to sign up leaf sites (i.e. >terminal nodes) throughout the US, and not to provide a path to >others. Interesting that they don't own the content of what they're selling, in most if not all of these circumstances. They might have a claim on the compilation (in the case of Usenet), but so do I since I repackaged it as well, and get news from more than one source :-) >Our fixed price methodology stands in constrast to the usage based >service providers who want to encourage as much use as possible since >they bill according to this use. My fixed price methodology stands in contrast to the usage based service providers who want to encourage as much use as possible since they bill according to this use. :-) :-) And I'll even give you that feed for free if you agree to take all the groups I get and you feed at least 2 other sites full feeds as well. There are others who don't charge at all, under any number of circumstances. All one has to do is ask around. In general if you're able and willing to help out, you don't end up paying anyone other than Ma Bell. This is as it has been here for quite some time. I believe that model should be encouraged, and I operate here to facilitate it. If you want "up to the second Usenet" then you might need something more direct, and have to pay for it. In that case perhaps you're a potential customer. >To delineate this policy more rigorously, we have added new terms and >conditions to our UUPSI Order Form: > > ``As this is a fixed price service, no third party traffic >outside of the organization or its staff is allowed. Specifically, 1: >no electronic mail whatsoever from another organization should be sent >or received through UUPSI; 2: if USENET/NEWS is fed to another >organization, no posting from that third party organization should be >sent through UUPSI.'' That is actually reasonable -- and not at all like what was first posted. I wouldn't agree to such a clause anyway. It flies in the face of what made Usenet work originally, the free flow of information without restriction or encumberance as the person who currently posesses it sees fit. That makes lots of sense, since you didn't generate or originate the traffic. In fact, it is that traffic which makes your service worth anything at all (we're talking news feeds now). I do, however, see that as the volume grows there is going to be a market for the other model of things (get only what you actually read at a site -- due to not being able to handle the volume alone!) Email can be an entirely different matter. There are lots of companies who have it in their best interest to keep you from passing third party traffic. They would like nothing more than to have a revenue stream from each email message.....and they might have a point there in some cases. Now, if PSI (or anyone else) can demonstrate that they can get the mail and news to me cheaper, easier and more reliably than I can with the current model of operation (cooperative interconnection) AND has a cooperative attitude rather than a combative one I would buy their service. That's only good common sense. I will, however, pay a little more to be free of the idea that a service provider is doing me a favor, or some of the ideological issues I disagree with. And I believe in voting with my (yes, my very own) wallet. >As per Section 10 of the order Form that you have signed, we are >informing you that effective the 15th of April 1991 these terms and >conditions are in effect. For customers looking to continue their >UUPSI services, no action is necessary as per this Order Form. For >customers who wish to end their UUPSI services do to this >clarification, please contact: > > Accounts Receivable > PSI, Inc. > Box 3850 > Reston, VA 22091 So they're giving you the chance to back out peaceably. That seems reasonable. > For those wishing no restraints in the area of third-party >traffic, a more epxensive service is now available under a separate >contract. Please contact UUPSI Sales in Reston for more details. I am >enclosing the new UUPSI Order Form for your information. I would predict that many business concerns wouldn't have a problem with it. Those are typically small businesses without any other connections (if you have an inter-company link for other purposes, you could violate this rather easily and accidentally). Large companies might have a problem, and individuals who desire to be able to feed others (and thus help the flow of Usenet) certainly would have a problem with it. Remember too that UUNET does charge by the minute. Also remember that they don't care if you pass third party traffic in any direction you wish, and I never had a problem with them. They're well-connected too..... On the other hand, UUNET is NOT cheap if you do any kind of volume. As a final note, I'm neither a UUNET or PSI customer. I did have a UUNET account, but don't need it anymore -- local connections are quite adaquate as it is. I tried to get a PSI contract to look over a couple of months back, but it never showed up (and I didn't persue it very heavily). From the posted letter above they wouldn't have fit my needs anyway. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Copyright 1991 Karl Denninger. Distribution by site(s) which restrict redistribution of Usenet news PROHIBITED.
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (03/10/91)
In article <1991Mar10.023408.3693@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
The above referenced posting is an actual posting of mine.
I have been informed that there were two other postings, one under my name
and another under a name that isn't valid as an id here (and never was) that
were posted apparently from this site. At least I think they originated
here... I'm not able to be sure at this time.
I have been unable to determine who sent the articles, but I did find both
and cancel them. My .signature was world readable, and one posting actually
had included it.
The posting referenced above is the >only< one I have actually made on the
UUPSI matter. The one from "akcs.madhacker" in alt.sys.sun is also a
forgery. Both are good forgeries, and appear to have been made at a
neighboring site (I get copied as mail on all local posts, and I didn't
get copied on these!)
If I find the person(s) respondible they'll be summarially shot :-)
I guess it's time to turn accounting on and see if we can find some
information the next time this happens - at least who's site sent the
stuff over. As it is I couldn't tell you where they originated -- I
simply don't have the space to keep logs on daily uucp traffic.
As an aside, has anyone noticed how easy it is to forge postings in Cnews?
As long as you have an id on a site, or can inject an article there (via
uucp, etc) you can EASILY forge articles. You simply feed an article to
"inews" or "rnews" and it posts it -- with whatever headers (like the
sender's name) are there. No "X-bad-authentication: xxxx" message or
anything.
Bleh. Some kind of authentication is in order, at least on this system.
Sorry about that folks.
Thanks to Tom Neff and Brad Templeton who sent me email questioning the
statements; it made me take a look at what was in my news spool, and what
had been posted in the last 24 hours!
Time to sit down and code a quick and dirty authenticator for "C" news.
I'll post it when I'm done for anyone who wants it.
--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200]
Copyright 1991 Karl Denninger. Distribution by site(s) which restrict
redistribution of Usenet news PROHIBITED.xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (03/10/91)
aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes: > This is madness. PSI don't want your news, they want your money - it's > PSI customers that want the news and email. Dropping email designed > for the customers into /dev/null hurts the customers, not PSI. You're only looking at first order effects; the second order effect is that PSI loses customers because PSI's angered the larger net enough to cause that net to implement a boycott that makes PSI service less valuable to its customers than that of sites providing a full bidirectional feed, even at higher prices. > I take it you don't pay PSI for any service yourself. If you're trying > to persuade others not to either, fine - but don't do it with threats. A boycott is probably indeed a threat, but this country has a noble if spotty history of using boycotts to make sure that some customers aren't _forced_ to ride in the back of the bus. Suddenly populating the net with a new class of entities, leaves that cannot become nodes, is making second class citizens of part of the net. > I'm not a great fan of the market, but it seems to me the only useful > way to prevent this happening is to set up competitive alternatives. Probably so, but USENet as an entity is _extremely_ prickly about allowing a degradation in the qualities of a feed that are the essence of the net: equal rights to feeds, no censorship, rights to pass feeds on, use of public domain software to run the net, and so forth. Each time such a threat comes to the attention of the net, the cries of outrage, and the type of muscle flexing now being seen in news.admin, occur. If the collective will of the net is that there is a minimal level of service below which an entity is not allowed to participate in USENet, and the net can enforce that will, it is probably to the benefit of all participants that it do so, even if the "minimal level" is fuzzily defined. The net tends to be _very_ insistant that certain classes of behavior, and certain software problems, be cleaned up or disconnected, for instance. One of the ways the net has always grown and flourished is that leaf sites grow up to become nodes. Having a major player that tells leaf sites "you may not become a node and use this feed" puts a real damper on the natural growth pattern of the net. Making what was once a well connected, cooperative net, into a net heavily dependent upon a few, centralized feeds with major political clout downgrades the reliability and "atmosphere" of the net. For example, what do you think would happen to the net tomorrow if uunet were seized by its (hypothetical) creditors and sold off for parts, with no notice? We are already the victims of dangerous centralization, and there is no one visible making sure the net is still well interconnected in case a major player falls. Look what happened when _one_ site in Minnesota stopped feeding alt.sex.pictures: big chunks of the state lost the newsgroup, and the postings of complaint are still flying. Telling leaf sites they may not become better connected worsens this problem for all sites. This hurts us all. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/10/91)
In article <1991Mar10.023408.3693@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > There are others who don't charge at all, under any number of circumstances. > All one has to do is ask around. In general if you're able and willing to > help out, you don't end up paying anyone other than Ma Bell. This might well be a more substantial sum than the $75 per month UUPSI charges. > If you want "up to the second Usenet" then you might need something more > direct, and have to pay for it. In that case perhaps you're a potential > customer. I don't know where you are, but in a lot of places the traditional methods give you at best 2-day-old Usenet. Sometimes older than that. > Now, if PSI (or anyone else) can demonstrate that they can get the mail > and news to me cheaper, easier and more reliably than I can with the > current model of operation (cooperative interconnection) AND has a > cooperative attitude rather than a combative one I would buy their > service. That's only good common sense. For folks in less well connected parts of the U.S., they can. We're talking $75 versus hundreds of dollars. As an individual with a desire to feed others, I have no problem with it. I can feed a full UUPSI stream in, which speeds up half the loop. Replies will take longer through the traditional late-night long-distance calls, but since the volume is now MUCH lower this becomes affordable too. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) (03/10/91)
In article <1991Mar10.112826.2231@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes: >> I take it you don't pay PSI for any service yourself. If you're trying >> to persuade others not to either, fine - but don't do it with threats. >A boycott is probably indeed a threat, My point was that it's bad to threaten the _customers_ of PSI to force them to join your boycott, which is what you're doing. Saying "I don't like what you're doing, I ain't subscribing no more" is fine. Saying "I don't like what you're doing, I'm going to _force_ other people not to subscribe either" isn't. ____ \/ o\ Paul Crowley aipdc@uk.ac.ed.castle \ / /\__/ Part straight. Part gay. All queer. \/
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/11/91)
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > Suddenly populating the net > with a new class of entities, leaves that cannot become nodes, is making > second class citizens of part of the net. Come on, Kent. This is an exxageration at best. The standard news and mail software can handle UUPSIs conditions without any fancy maneuvering. There is no reason that UUPSI customers can't get all the alternate connections they want, so long as they look like a leaf to UUPSI. > For example, what do you think would happen to the net tomorrow if uunet > were seized by its (hypothetical) creditors and sold off for parts, with > no notice? A lot of sites would become UUPSI customers. > We are already the victims of dangerous centralization, and there is no > one visible making sure the net is still well interconnected in case a > major player falls. Well, UUPSI is. > Telling leaf sites they may not become better connected worsens this > problem for all sites. Who's saying that? Not UUPSI. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (03/11/91)
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> If you want "up to the second Usenet" then you might need something more >> direct, and have to pay for it. In that case perhaps you're a potential >> customer. >I don't know where you are, but in a lot of places the traditional methods >give you at best 2-day-old Usenet. Sometimes older than that. Our connections here are running less than 12 hours old (news from all major sites makes it into nstar within a couple of hours) which isn't instant - but not bad.. We will feed sites backbone feeds for $75 per year via Telebit Trailblazer and offer excellent throughput in most cases. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287 (HST/PEP/V.32/v.42bis) regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/11/91)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: > peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >I don't know where you are, but in a lot of places the traditional methods > >give you at best 2-day-old Usenet. Sometimes older than that. > Our connections here are running less than 12 hours old... OK, and where are you? (remember, the "traditional methods" tend to include avoiding long-distance phone calls). -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (03/11/91)
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >I don't know where you are, but in a lot of places the traditional methods >> >give you at best 2-day-old Usenet. Sometimes older than that. >> Our connections here are running less than 12 hours old... >OK, and where are you? (remember, the "traditional methods" tend to include >avoiding long-distance phone calls). We are in Notre Dame, IN and rarely make long distance telephone calls -- (We do feed a couple of sites via 800 numbers - does that qualify as long distance?) The majority of our news from major sites is less than 12 hours old (it is not uncommon for news to be 6 hours old in many cases).. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287 (HST/PEP/V.32/v.42bis) regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
clay@uci.com (Clayton Haapala) (03/13/91)
> >---------------v------v-----BEGIN PSI LETTER---v-----v-------v----- > >From: John Eldredge, Director of Sales & Marketing >Subject: Changes in Terms and Conditions of UUPSI Service >Date: February 28, 1991 . . . > For those wishing no restraints in the area of third-party >traffic, a more epxensive service is now available under a separate >contract. Please contact UUPSI Sales in Reston for more details. I am >enclosing the new UUPSI Order Form for your information. > >Enclosure > >-------------^---------^-------END OF PSI LETTER-----^-----^----^-- IMHO, in the networked environment we live in, it makes no sense to restrict the third-party traffic that of which this letter speaks. What makes sense is to make charges based on volume, and use tiers to allow rates to resemble the flat rate structure the PSI desires. If I was a PSI subscriber with a small number of other UUCP sites that generated a minor amount of Email and fewer news postings, I would feel that I should stay in the lowest flat-rate tier. On the other hand, if I was a PSI leaf-site, and my address was "joe@a-s-p-posters.com" :-) and we generated megabytes/day of traffic, PSI ought to move me into a more high-priced tier based on that volume. The accounting needed (uutraf | grep "a-s-p-posters" | ....) would have to be easier than the per message/article processing that detects third-party traffic. -- Clayton Haapala (clay@uci.com) Unified Communications Inc. "Every morning I get in the Queue. 3001 Metro Drive - Suite 500 'n get on the Bus that takes me to you." Bloomington, MN 55425 -- the Who
pcg@test.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Antonio Grandi) (03/14/91)
On 5 Mar 91 21:03:38 GMT, xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) said: [ ... on newsfeeds insisting that downstream sites do not redistribute articles fed to them ... ] xanthian> The last time we had someone try to pull this garbage on the net (the xanthian> Stargate project) a bunch of people developed variations on the xanthian> attached signature (the one I did then got quoted in a sociologist's xanthian> study of the issues, a bit of an ego boost), which pretty thoroughly xanthian> squashed that nonsense, since copyright violations carry real world xanthian> penalties. Maybe on your side of the Atlantic; here in the UK the UKnet/USENET gateway does not give a damn about such copyrights, and even forbids redistribution of GNU newsgroups, even source ones. xanthian> The cost of trying to filter thousands of these copyright xanthian> restricted articles out overwhelmed any value of restricting xanthian> distribution of the collections. Some clever people just don't bother... -- Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@aber.ac.uk
Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) (03/14/91)
John De Armond writes:
<We have no right, morally or
<otherwise, to dictate what our customers do with the news and mail we
<forward. We are a common carrier just like the phone company. To see
<the absurdity of the PSI policy, contemplate the reaction if Ma Bell
<tried to tell us what we could do with the information (voice or
<otherwise) transmitted over their facilities.
Actually, John, I think this is an incredibly profound remark. There
are issues of constitutional importance here that are in their own
right as important as the establishment of the First Amendment was
after the signing of the Constitution. I don't think I'm waxing poetic.
Most people take for granted free speech rights as embodied in First
Amendment rights. However, what most don't realize is that the
courts have yet to find that the First Amendment applies in full to
electronic publishing, and the current lack of regulation of
electronic publishing by the FCC, other regulatory agencies, has been
a matter of policy rather than a matter of constitutionally-imposed
necessity.
In general, the government has historically employed three distinct
models for publishing: 1) the free press model; 2) the common carrier
model; 3) the broadcasting model. It is clear that to protect our
free speech rights we need for the courts to interpret the Internet
and other regional nets as common carriers, and information that
passes on those networks should be given FULL First Amendment
protection as with the free press model. Yet it's distressing to
find that the current regulatory environment puts the Internet and
regional nets under something much more akin to the broadcasting
model, a model under which information content is highly regulated.
For those who are interested in reading more on this subject, the
most important work on the subject is the book "Technologies Of
Freedom" by Ithiel de Sola Pool.
It is going to take a number of court cases, and maybe even a new
constitutional amendment, to straighten out this whole mess. However
I think it is an issue about which we should all be very concerned.
It is not often that a generation of Americans gets to deal with an
issue that literally defines a key civil liberty, and I hope we are
up to the challenge.
Will Estes (apple!cup.portal.com!Will)karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (03/16/91)
In article <EC620ED@taronga.hackercorp.com> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Mar10.023408.3693@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >> There are others who don't charge at all, under any number of circumstances. >> All one has to do is ask around. In general if you're able and willing to >> help out, you don't end up paying anyone other than Ma Bell. > >This might well be a more substantial sum than the $75 per month UUPSI >charges. I doubt it. You see, I live in an area where ALL calls are timed (at least from "business" phones) and all calls are timed if more than 8 miles in distance, from business OR residential lines! I pay something like $300 a month to Ma Bell; I can't lay out another $75. Now, if it were JUST the $75... but that won't happen around here. >> If you want "up to the second Usenet" then you might need something more >> direct, and have to pay for it. In that case perhaps you're a potential >> customer. > >I don't know where you are, but in a lot of places the traditional methods >give you at best 2-day-old Usenet. Sometimes older than that. Well, I get nearly-instant Usenet (about 3-4 hours delay, most of the time). Plenty good enough for me and those who feed from me. >> Now, if PSI (or anyone else) can demonstrate that they can get the mail >> and news to me cheaper, easier and more reliably than I can with the >> current model of operation (cooperative interconnection) AND has a >> cooperative attitude rather than a combative one I would buy their >> service. That's only good common sense. > >For folks in less well connected parts of the U.S., they can. We're talking >$75 versus hundreds of dollars. In places where there are no feeds AND a local indial, you have a point. How many places are like that? PSI can't make any money if there is no use of the indials, and leased lines aren't cheap. I bet their backbone only goes to heavily populated areas, which usually have "free" feeds (or lower cost) available... -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Copyright 1991 Karl Denninger. Distribution by site(s) which restrict redistribution of Usenet news PROHIBITED.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/18/91)
In article <1991Mar16.053429.23172@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > In article <EC620ED@taronga.hackercorp.com> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >In article <1991Mar10.023408.3693@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > >> There are others who don't charge at all, under any number of circumstances. > >> All one has to do is ask around. In general if you're able and willing to > >> help out, you don't end up paying anyone other than Ma Bell. > >This might well be a more substantial sum than the $75 per month UUPSI > >charges. > I doubt it. You see, I live in an area where ALL calls are timed (at least > from "business" phones) and all calls are timed if more than 8 miles in > distance, from business OR residential lines! > I pay something like $300 a month to Ma Bell; I can't lay out another $75. Didn't I just say that was a more substantial sum than the $75 per month UUPSI charges? But more to the point, in very many places the call to a UUPSI POP is free or charged on a per-call basis, but the call to a site willing to feed you is long distance. For us (Houston is such an example) UUPSI is a dead win. > >I don't know where you are, but in a lot of places the traditional methods > >give you at best 2-day-old Usenet. Sometimes older than that. > Well, I get nearly-instant Usenet (about 3-4 hours delay, most of the > time). Plenty good enough for me and those who feed from me. Again, you're in a completely different situation. > >For folks in less well connected parts of the U.S., they can. We're talking > >$75 versus hundreds of dollars. > In places where there are no feeds AND a local indial, you have a point. No, even if there are other sites getting Usenet, they may not have the modem time or may otherwise be unwilling to provide a feed. I have a 2400 baud modem on my home system. Even the tiny fraction of the groups I get can tie up someone's modem for hours. The guy I get my mail from (uh.edu) isn't willing to feed me news for that reason, so I get two sub-feeds from different sites. I'm happy to feed a couple of people in turn, but I literally don't have the resources to do more than that. This means *long* delays for the traditional methods... if someone's site is off line for a day, that's a day's delay bubble in the flow. > How many places are like that? Houston is. In fact most of Texas is like that. > PSI can't make any money if there is no use of the indials, and leased lines > aren't cheap. I bet their backbone only goes to heavily populated areas, > which usually have "free" feeds (or lower cost) available... Lower cost, and lower quality. > Copyright 1991 Karl Denninger. Distribution by site(s) which restrict > redistribution of Usenet news PROHIBITED. I don't know of any such sites since Stargate folded. Can you name one? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (03/18/91)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Didn't I just say that was a more substantial sum than the $75 per month UUPSI >charges? But more to the point, in very many places the call to a UUPSI POP is >free or charged on a per-call basis, but the call to a site willing to feed you >is long distance. For us (Houston is such an example) UUPSI is a dead win. Likewise with other cities - $75 sure beats long distance - but for those sites who most pay LD on top of any connection charges UUPSI might not be such a good deal. Here at nstar.rn.com we feed around 18 sites - and our news runs on the average 12 hours old. We do have room for 1 or 2 additional PEP feeds (base price $75/year) and our throughput exceeds uunet (so we've been told by several folks connected to uunet). -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287 (HST/PEP/V.32/v.42bis) regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}