In <AVDI.4208@pcforvm.avcnet.org> david.grondin@pcforvm.avcnet.org writes:
>I felt then as I do now that when
>you get all boards to agree what the price should be, you will be
>condenming the less "affluent" boards to death. Yes, you may get some
>income, but that income will not be spread to all boards evenly....Users
>will pay for what they perceive is the best board and not to the
others.
I think Dave is right. High Five exists strictly to provide e-mail and
news. If I charged what the "feature-rich" boards do, I would have no
clients at all.
The one way I can see out of this dilemma is to set a maximum
charge for access to e-mail and news. Even at that, I don't have the
disk space to take a large newsfeed. I add groups on request.
If the maximum fee for e-mail and news was set low to maximize citizen
access, people would go to other systems that have a nearly full news
feed. Of course, one could say that's my problem, to find a way to
"differentiate" my system so people want to use it.
Any way we turn, there seem to be thorny issues. I guess that's why
people avoid trying to get for-profit and non-profit organizations
together. The whole thing would be a moot point if we sysops had to
pay for our e-mail and news feeds.
Jim Hart <jhart@h5.avcnet.org>
"Working together, we _can_ make a difference."
© 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 Androscoggin Valley Community Network