From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: The bogus Nixpub Posting
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 07:17:43 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

tto@aspentec.com writes:

>As a user, I would like to see more information available.  Thus, I would
>like to know about sites that does not give free access to first time
>callers such as John's.  On the other hand, I would also like to see the
>information organized in a sensible way; and having John publishing a list
>that largely duplicates Phil's just adds more confusion.

Finally some rational discourse.

>- [John changing his policy]  We are not dictating your policy, John, just
>  trying to persuade.  Don't you think that publishing a modem-accessible
>  number is a good way to advertise?  It would not be too difficult to make
>  your system secure enough to thwart penetration by first time callers,
>  would it?  Besides, you don't really think that all of your registered users
>  would be guarding the secrecy of your numbers with extra diligence, do you?

Though Dixie's service contract does specify that login information will be
kept secret, Dixie's dialups are not particularly secret.  They are listed in 
the phone book.  There is a very wide gulf between this and publishing 
a come-one-come-all number.  

There are several issues.  To set the stage, some background.  Dixie.com
has been around for about 5 years except for a short fire outage. 
We started Dixie originally because we were tired of hearing people at 
the Atlanta Unix Users' Group trying to get Usenet access in atlanta 
without success. If you knew someone or your company had access  or you
were a CS grad from Tech or Emory, you could usually get an account.
Otherwise you were shit outta luck.

I ran the numbers to see what would be necessary to offer reliable service,
make enough money to replace equipment as it broke and perhaps hire
an admin.  Funny thing.  I came up with almost the precise price schedule
that UUNET has.  No good.  Take two.  How about if I buy the hardware
and only ask that user revenue pay for recurring costs (phones, electricity,
A/C, insurance, etc.)  Looks better.  That's where I am now.  One
of the things I committed to in the beginning was no busy signals.
That means every 5 or 6 users I have to buy a modem and install a new
phone line and perhaps add I/O to the system.

I started out just signing up users and billing every so often.  I 
discovered the common american deadbeat.   Soooo now I bill in advance
just like the lawyers do.  end of that problem.

From that auspicious beginning, I've "bought" dixie hardware three times.
Dixie.1 was destroyed in a fire, Dixie.2 was stolen and Dixie.3 is this
system.  Pretty expensive system.  After the theft, I considered pulling
the plug on the public access side of dixie.  Problem is, there is no
where else to go for people who need shell accounts and who use the 
system professionally. (Gwinnette.com does not offer shell logins as
far as I know.)  I tried to give the accounts away.  No one wanted
this financial albatross!

Where we're at now is Dixie has to support itself financially and it 
has to not take much of my time.  Since I add phone lines whenever necessary
and since the system must support itself, any free logins would drive 
up usage and result in higher subscriber fees.  Not something they'd
want.  And since adding a new line is a day's work, I'm not in too much
hurry to do that very often.  

What this all winds around to is there is not and will not be
anonymous  logins on Dixie.  Not really a problem though.  I've
signed a user up in as little as a couple of hours.  My phone
and fax numbers are readily  available and will be published in
any list that dixie is in. I'll fax subscription contracts, and
have even met new users at a mutually to  pick up the contract and
payment.  The only people who seriously object to this procedure
are the deadbeats and Stallmanites who think that all computers
should be avalable as their personal playground. 


>- [OK, OK, so none of you want to change]  So there have to be two lists
>  after all. [sigh]  But gentlemen, please _cooperate_.  I would rather not
>  see any unnecessary duplication of information.  So, John, please publish
>  only sites that are not carried by Phil's.  If you know about a site
>  that fits Phil's criteria, please forward to him and let him publish it.
>  Likewise, Phil, please forward any other site to John, even if you do
>  not agree with that site's policy.

Here's hoping Phil heeds your arguments. If not and if there is
sufficient interest in my maintaining a comprehensive list, it
will be comprehensive. It will be available electronically via
mail server, by fax on PE magazine's fax server and will be
listed in PE because my readers will want convenient  places
other than the likes of Compu$erv to pick up code that
accompanies  PE articles.  Thing is if Phil does get rational,
the lazy side of me will make me publicize his list instead. 
That's the  interesting paradox.  He gets his ego stroked even
more by suppressing it just a little. 

>I thank both of you in hearing me out.

You're welcome.

john

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.dcom.modems