>As such, I disagree with you concerning the free membership issue. Everyone should pay a fee. The fee can be nominal (e.g. $20), but everyone shoulds get off their cheap asses and pay it and MAYBE ONE DAY THEY WILL HAVE A $$$ MAKING VENTURE THEMSELVES! God forbid - I would not want a weak, sniveling customer base like this!!!
>

Jeff,

I disagree at least in part, but agree in general. There is a need for free access to UT as a support medium for the community. If UT can provide it, great.

PUTM is a high-ticket upgrade that does not get much of a change in the user interface, but offers significant advantages when dealing with UT Partners. In part, this is what PUTM members are doing by becoming PUTM members. In large part, however, they're providing a revenue stream in the hope that UT remains a functional and worthwhile entity.

I'd like to see some rollback of the free user interface so that, while present, is not as convenient - perhaps time limited or volume limited - I don't have an answer here. In addition, add a relatively low-cost membership in the $15-20 range that gets the basic functionality now available. It provides a way for users who don't have the finances to become full-fledged PUTM to help pay for the upkeep and make a statement that they're willing to support UT in the interest of keeping it feasible.

IOW, create a way for UT participants to say "UT is worth some small financial investment, but PUTM does not make sense for me." It shows support. It increases the revenue stream. It relieves the perception that PUTM are giving the rest of the people a free ride.

The same model is used successfully in the publicly-funded broadcast envrionment in the US today. I support my local public broadcast station. Isn't UT worth supporting? Only a small percentage of PBS viewers and public radio listenrs join their stations, but with an entry level of $25-35 for a basic paid membership, I'm sure the percentage is much larger than if the minimum entry level were $100.