🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep2.023908.18146@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au>, Christopher.Vance@adfa.oz.au (Christopher JS Vance) writes:
> I *think* this is the situation:
> 
> News is not charged for by AARN despite the fact that its volume
> swamps mail to any single site, because the AARN site already has to
> carry news for its own purposes.  I believe that AARN sites are free
> to charge a fee for their connections, or to decline any request to
> connect.

What this implies is that the small sites should only pay the incremental cost 
of providing news, ie, since it is already at your nearest uni, you should
only have to pay for getting it from there, not contribute to getting it to 
there.  

What if a university had (say) 1000 news readers?  What if that same 
university fed (directly or indirectly) 1000 small sites?  Would it be fair
for the same "incremental cost" to apply, ie, the univerity pay for AARNet and 
the others not contribute?

At the same time as this, charging for mail is dismissed because the volume is 
so small relative to news.

I have to wonder what it is that the small sites actually value from an AARNet 
connection?  Is it mail access?  Is it news?  Would they want a connection if 
they could send and receive mail but not get news?  How much would they be 
prepared to pay for a mail-only connection?

Just stirring the pot :-)
-- 
David Morrison, Manager, Networks and Comms, Uni of Newcastle, Australia
sysnet@cc.newcastle.edu.au or (VAX PSI) psi%0505249626002::sysnet
Phone: +61 49 215397	Fax: +61 49 216910