>Yes, I think I understand where you are coming from on this and I agree. It's a bit of a tactical blunder. Still, though, the UT for a year is about the same as FoxTalk and a bit more than FPA, but I feel like I get a lot more out of it. Consider it value perceived if not value received.
>

I don't think you can compare the UT to periodicals like FoxTalk and FPA. If you want to go down this road, then fine. Riddle me this... If FoxTalk and FPA comp'd 70% of their subscriptions, do you think the magazines would still be around?? I don't think it would be economically viable. The medium is complete different. You cannot ask the FPA magazine a question. It is totally different.....

>I think I saw Rod post that he estimated his run costs for a year of about $5,000. I'll buy that for the lines and hardware, but he must value his per hour time pretty cheap if it's included. Yes, there have been connection slowdowns but very little complete downtime here. So Michel is putting some time into this.
>

I can tell you Rod does not spend an inordinate amount of time supporting the FoxForum. First off, the architecture is a bit better, not a FoxPro-based application that has been in service for many years. Maybe that is the reason why this place requires so much support. I am curious about the data store. I wonder if this place is still using DBF's or SQL-Server. I guarantee the UT could be run for a 10th of the cost it is now, and on better hardware..... If it requires that much support now, that to me is extremely inefficient. No wonder there are no economies of scale..


>So, back to the original assertion: Could the UT be supported by advertising? Hardware and connections, yes. Support services maybe not. Nobody is forcing anyone to pay for PUTM and I think it's important that free members get the ability to use this as a tech support resource.
>

But what about the people that do pay. They get shafted... For those that don't pay, they still have a right to complain. If I advertised up here, I would be hopping mad about the performance. Those folks have not been brought into the argument....

>
I don't see a clear-cut change mandate in this ussue, so I'm not sure that I have a strong opinion.
<

You are a sysop now... And as such, you need to take the company stance...